In April 2000, the FNV trade union confederation collected the experiences of Dutch "whistleblowers -" employees who expose abuses in their company - and received a notable 8,000 responses. Half of the responses came from government employees, and earlier in 2000, the Minister of the interior presented an "integrity memorandum" on whistleblowing by such workers, following a trade union request.
Download article in original language : NL0005191NNL.DOC
In April 2000, the FNV trade union confederation collected the experiences of Dutch "whistleblowers -" employees who expose abuses in their company - and received a notable 8,000 responses. Half of the responses came from government employees, and earlier in 2000, the Minister of the interior presented an "integrity memorandum" on whistleblowing by such workers, following a trade union request.
In April, the Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging, FNV), the Netherlands's largest union confederation, took action to inventory the experiences of "whistleblowers" (klokkenluiders) - employees who either report abuses in their company to a higher authority or go public with their findings. FNV asked whistleblowers to telephone a special number, and the response during the three-day exercice was remarkable: the switchboard fielded 8,000 calls. In-depth conversations were held with 150 callers, with one-third reporting abuse of power by their employers, one-fifth reporting non-observance of regulations and one-seventh reporting the concealing of information. In many cases, multiple abuses were reported, such as mismanagement with money, fraud, corruption and bribery. About half of the callers were current or former employees in the government and related sectors.
Earlier in 2000, the FNV-affiliated trade union, AbvaKabo, asked the government for a policy document on this issue, as a result of studies indicating that a quarter of all civil servants had considered coming forth to expose abuses but kept quiet for fear of anticipated repercussions. In response to the AbvaKabo request, the Minister of the Interior has since overseen the formulation of an "integrity memorandum" based on the UK's 1998 Public Interest Disclosure Act (UK9907119N). Reports of abuses must concern suspicions based on reasonable grounds over seriously punishable offences, gross violation of rules or regulations, or an extreme hazard to public health and environment, for example. The memorandum indicated the internal route which the civil servant should take for reporting abuse; that is, whether the wisest move is to contact a supervisor, a confidant or a committee. Leaks to the press are still strictly forbidden. Although AbvaKabo is satisfied with the Minister"'s move to present these guidelines, it considers the strict conditions laid down to be dubious and overwhelmingly vague, and wonders who decides what consists a seriously punishable offence or extreme hazard to public health. Also, the exclusion of nepotism and waste of money as abuses which civil servants may report caused some concerns."
A noteworthy recent development in this area is that Paul van Buitenen, the European Commission civil servant who blew the whistle on problems at the Commission and ultimately went public, only to face disciplinary measures, has since received a Dutch royal honour. This means that the whistleblower who contributed to bringing down the European Commission under the leadership of Jacques Santer in 1999 has now been completely vindicated at the highest level in the Netherlands.
Eurofound soovitab viidata sellele väljaandele järgmiselt.
Eurofound (2000), Whistleblowing under debate, article.
