Keele UniversityCentral Services
Why Keele?
Grounds for Greatness
“Once you’ve been here for even just a week, you’ll never want to leave!”
Keele Overview Video
Governance
Explore this Section
Whistleblowing
To view the University's policy on Whistleblowing, please click here to view the document in the Policy Zone.
Whistleblowing Procedure
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Whistleblowing Procedure outlines the University’s process for handling allegations by members of staff, students, and those defined as ‘workers’ as per the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998,concerning malpractice or impropriety in the administration and governance of the University.
1.2 The University encourages all staff and students to raise any genuine concerns that they have about possible improprieties or malpractices, at the earliest opportunity.
2.0 Making an Allegation
2.1 If any employee believes reasonably and in good faith that malpractice exists in the workplace, then they should report this immediately. Guidance on the appropriate reporting channel is outlined below.
2.2 It is not appropriate to use the Whistleblowing procedure in circumstances already covered by other relevant University approved procedures, for example staff and student grievance, harassment, disciplinary, and health and safety, and fraud and financial irregularity policies and procedures. Details of the relevant procedures in these cases may be obtained from the appropriate University Directorate and from the University’s website. In most circumstances these procedures will also prove sufficient for the investigation of alleged malpractice.
2.3 There are two ways in which allegations not covered by other University policies and procedures can be raised in a confidential manner under the Whistleblowing Procedure:
2.4 Allegations about an individual’s financial conduct should normally be made in writing as outlined in the University’s Fraud and Financial Irregularity Policy. If a staff member believes that the matter goes beyond the stipulations of the Fraud and Financial Irregularity Policy, an allegation should be made in writing, clearly stating that the concern is being raised under the Whistleblowing Policy. The correspondence should set out the full detail of the concern, along with any supporting evidence/documentation.
2.5 Allegations should be addressed to the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance. Investigation of financial irregularity and fraud will normally be dealt with under the University’s Policy on Fraud and Financial Irregularity.
2.6 Allegations about other issues, for example the behaviour of a senior officer of the University, or of a lay/independent member of the University Council, or about the propriety of Committee or other collective decisions, should be made, as the person making the allegation deems appropriate, to the Vice-Chancellor, to the University Secretary and Registrar or to the Chair of Council. If for any reason none of these individuals is deemed to be appropriate the allegation should be made to the Chair of the Audit Committee via the Secretary.
2.7 In any case where an allegation has been made, the person to whom the allegation is made should make a record of its receipt and of subsequent action taken, including the individual appointed as the investigating officer.
2.8 Anonymous allegations are not automatically disregarded but, given the safeguards for those making allegations under this procedure, they may carry less weight than those from named individuals.
3.0 Investigation
3.1 Any allegation made under this procedure shall normally be the subject of a preliminary investigation either by the person to whom the allegation is made or more usually by an independent person or persons appointed by him/her as an investigating officer. A decision as to whether a preliminary investigation should be carried out should be made within two working weeks of the allegation being received, and if this is not possible the person making the allegation should receive an explanation of the delay. Investigations will not be carried out by the person who may ultimately have to reach a decision on the matter. The investigating officer is responsible for ensuring that the investigation is completed as expeditiously as possible.
3.2 Where the allegation relates to fraud or financial irregularity, the allegation will normally be investigated using the provisions of the Fraud and Financial Irregularity Policy and Fraud Response Plan.
3.3 Where an allegation relating to other areas of malpractice is made, and an investigation carried out, the person or persons against whom the allegation is made must be told of the allegation, the evidence supporting it, and be allowed to comment before the investigation is concluded and a report made. Any investigation would be undertaken without unreasonable delay.
3.4 The results of the investigation shall be reported to the Audit Committee and the person making the allegations shall be informed of the outcome in writing.
3.5 Where the investigation confirms that malpractice has occurred by any party, which may include the individual making the allegation, if malicious, appropriate University procedures will be used to take the matter forward as expeditiously as possible.
3.6 Where the investigation confirms that there is no malpractice to answer, the allegation is effectively dismissed. The person making the allegation shall be informed.
3.7 The investigating officer may decide that an investigation would be inappropriate because there is no substantive case or that normal formal channels should be used to raise the issue. Where no investigation is carried out, and the allegation is effectively dismissed, the person making the allegations shall be informed.
3.8 Once an investigation has been concluded, the person making the allegation shall have no recourse to have their allegation reconsidered.
4.0 Rights and responsibilities of Whistleblowers
4.1 Any person making an allegation under these procedures is guaranteed that the allegation shall be regarded as confidential until a formal investigation is launched. Thereafter, the identity of the person making the allegation may be kept confidential, if requested, unless this is incompatible with a fair investigation, or if there is an overriding reason for disclosure (for example, if police involvement is required). A similar duty of confidentiality lies on the person making the allegation.
4.2 Provided the allegation has been made lawfully, without malice, and in the public interest, the employment position of the person shall not be disadvantaged for reasons of making the allegation. Harassment or victimisation of individuals, who have raised concerns, including informal pressures, will not be tolerated and will be treated as a serious disciplinary offence which will be dealt with under the relevant disciplinary procedures.
4.3 If an allegation is made in good faith, but is not confirmed by the investigation, no action will be taken against the person making the allegation. If, however, an allegation is established to have been made frivolously, maliciously or for personal gain, disciplinary action may be taken against the person, in accordance with the University’s disciplinary procedures.
4.4 Making allegations in the public domain without raising concerns with responsible senior members of the University, either through the normal official channels or following the Whistleblowing procedure, will not be regarded as a disciplinary offence if the information on which the allegation is based is already in the public domain or is public knowledge unless the information was gained by the member of staff through their work, thus importing an obligation of confidence.
5.0 Amendment and Review of Procedures
5.1 Amendments to this procedure, which shall be reviewed every three years by the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance and the Director of Human Resources, Student Support and Organisational Development, and in consultation with the Trades Unions, may be made by resolution of the Audit Committee.
Approved by University Council April 2011
Standards of conduct
1 Universities and colleges of higher education, like other public bodies, have a duty to conduct their affairs in a responsible and transparent way and to take into account both the requirements of funding bodies (including, of course, the Funding Council) and the standards in public life enunciated in Lord Nolan's Reports. In addition, the University is committed to the principles of academic freedom embodied in its Charter and Statutes, and enshrined in the Education Reform Act 1988 and in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Appropriate circumstances
2 Members of staff are often the first to know when things are going wrong in an institution, whether these concern questions of financial malpractice, the abrogation of appropriate and agreed procedures or departures from the statutory or other requirements for good governance. In the normal course of events, staff are encouraged to raise concerns through the official channels established, for example through Heads of Schools, at official committees, or through staff representatives, including accredited Trade Unions.
3 In most cases the normal Disciplinary Procedure of the University provides a suitable framework for the investigation of complaints by Heads of Schools or supervisors concerned. There may be exceptional circumstances, however, where the position of a person or persons about whom concerns are to be raised may make it difficult to use the normal official channels, and that some members of staff would feel, rightly or wrongly, that their own position in the institution will be jeopardised if they raise a particular concern in this way, and sometimes the usual channels may, indeed, be inappropriate. The University welcomes the vigilance of staff in the common interest of all members of the University, and has adopted procedures, set out below, to be followed in those circumstances where the usual channels and procedures are inappropriate.
4 It is not appropriate to use the "Whistleblowing" procedure in circumstances already covered by the University's approved disciplinary and grievance procedures (for example, allegations of injustices or discrimination against individuals or misconduct at work) or in relation to student grievances, where an appropriate procedure already exists. Details of the relevant procedures in these cases may be obtained from the Directors of Human Resources and Student Services and Planning and Academic Administration as appropriate. In most circumstances these procedures will also prove sufficient for the investigation of alleged malpractice. The Appendix below gives examples of the sorts of cases to which this Procedure applies, and the channels through which complaints may be made.
"Whistleblowing" procedures
Making an allegation
5 In the first instance, there are two different ways in which allegations can be raised in a confidential manner, depending on the circumstances:
(a) Allegations about an individuals financial conduct should normally be made in writing to the Director of Finance, who will transmit them to the internal auditors (UNIAC). These internal auditors are required to have a direct reporting relationship with the Vice-Chancellor (Professor Foskett), as the Officer within the University who is designated both by its Council and by the Funding Council to be accountable for the control of the institution's funds, and with the Audit Committee established by the University Council. Where for whatever reason the person making the allegation considers it inappropriate to make it to the Director of Finance and IT (Mrs Clarke), the provisions of paragraph (b) apply.
(b) Allegations about other issues, for example the behavior of a senior officer of the University, or of a lay/independent member of the University Council, or about the propriety of committee or other collective decisions, should be made, as the person making the allegation deems appropriate, to the Vice-Chancellor (Professor Foskett), to the Secretary to Council (Dr Clarke) or to the Chair of Council (Mr Peckham). If for any reason none of these individuals is deemed to be appropriate the allegation should be made to the Chair of the Audit Committee (Mr Khan).
6 In any case where an allegation has been made under paragraph 5 the person to whom the allegation is made should make a record of its receipt and of what subsequent action was taken. Anonymous allegations are not automatically disregarded but, given the safeguards for those making allegations under this procedure, they are usually less powerful than those from named individuals.
Investigation
7 Any allegation made under this procedure shall normally be the subject of a preliminary investigation either by the person to whom the allegation is made or more usually by a person or persons appointed by him/her. A decision as to whether a preliminary investigation should be carried out should be made within 2 weeks of the complaint being received, and if this is not possible the person making the complaint should receive an explanation of the delay. Investigations will not be carried out by the person who may ultimately have to reach a decision on the matter. The investigating officer is responsible for ensuring that the investigation is completed as expeditiously as possible.
8 Where the allegation relates to financial irregularity, the Internal Auditors will normally investigate the allegation, or report to a University authority higher than the subject of the allegation, as appropriate.
9 Where an allegation is made, and an investigation carried out, the person or persons against whom the allegation is made must be told of the allegation, the evidence supporting it, and be allowed to comment before the investigation is concluded and a report made.
10 The results of the investigation shall be reported to the Audit Committee.
11 Where the investigation confirms that malpractice has occurred by any party, which may include the individual making the allegation, appropriate University procedures will be used to take the matter forward as expeditiously as possible.
12 The person receiving the allegation may consider that an investigation would be inappropriate because there is no substantive case, or that the issue is trivial, or that the normal formal channels should be used to raise the issue. Where no investigation is carried out, and the allegation is effectively dismissed, the person making the allegations shall be informed and given the opportunity to remake the allegation to some other person or authority within the University. (This need not be done where an allegation is dismissed after an investigation.)
Rights and responsibilities of "whistleblowers"
13 Any person making an allegation under these procedures is guaranteed that the allegation shall be regarded as confidential to the receiver until a formal investigation is launched. Thereafter the identity of the person making the allegation may be kept confidential, if requested, unless this is incompatible with a fair investigation, or if there is an overriding reason for disclosure (for example, if police involvement is required). A similar duty of confidentiality lies on the person making the allegation.
14 Provided the allegation has been made lawfully, without malice, and in the public interest, the employment position of the person shall not be disadvantaged for reasons of making the allegation. Should a "whistleblower" be able to show prima facie evidence of adverse treatment after making an allegation, disciplinary action will be taken under the approved procedure. However, if the results of the investigation reported to Audit Committee reveal that the allegations have been made maliciously or vexatiously, the person making the allegations may be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
15 Making allegations in the public domain without raising concerns with responsible senior members of the University, either through the normal official channels or following the Whistleblowing procedures, will not be regarded as a disciplinary offense if the information on which the allegation is based is already in the public domain or is public knowledge, unless
the information was gained by the member of staff through their work, thus importing an obligation of confidence.
Amendment and review of procedures
16 Amendments to this procedure, which shall be reviewed twelve months after coming into effect, may be made by resolution of the University Council.
Note: All named individuals hold the posts shown at the time of approving the procedure in June 1999.
APPENDIX
"Whistleblowing" Procedure in action
| Complainant | Alleged Case | Route | Investigation method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Member of staff at junior level | Dishonesty of immediate colleague | Head of School or Supervisor | Disciplinary procedure |
| Subordinate | Abuse of position by immediate senior | Head of School | Grievance or Disciplinary procedures, depending on nature of abuse |
| Subordinate | Financial malpractice at senior level (HoS or above) | Director of Finance and IT or above | "Whistleblowing" procedure (and Discipline if prima facie case found) |
| Senior member of staff | Behaviour of senior officer | Vice-Chancellor or above | "Whistleblowing" procedure (and Discipline if prima facie case found) |
| Any | Malpractice of any kind by Vice-Chancellor or equivalent | Pro Chancellor or Chair of Audit Committee | "Whistleblowing" procedure |
NB In any investigation under the "Whistleblowing" procedure, further action may follow under the normal Discipline and Grievance procedures if suitable grounds are found.
Approved by Council 25 June 1999
Updated for office holders and revised, November 2001.
Updated for office holders February 2003.
Update for office holders July 2003.
Update for office holders September 2012.
