Opinions on this. A contradiction?

Bikerman2019

I was just reading about a hypothetical review that is to happen. They are inviting submissions. It struck me that the terms of reference are contradictory and really do not inspire confidence in confidentiality.



For example, "My experiences of Mr Paddy are that he was two faced, forgetful when desired, and dishonest. Overreaching, unpleasant, untrustworthy, " etc etc


If this was put forward with instances to show how and when, could there be consequences or is it fair comment?



Here is the basis of the imaginary examination with what I think is relevant parts highlighted.


Terms of Reference.

Any information you share, or disclosures you make to will be treated with care and confidentiality.
Your contributions will form part of the examination.
Your contributions may also form part of the final report.


All of your contributions will be anonymised to prevent you from being identifiable.

All contributions and communications will be digitally recorded and stored on encrypted devices. This information will be kept for a period of 2 years following submission of the final Review Report. After this 2-year period, all Review files and data will be destroyed in line with best data management practices.
If, at any time in this 2-year period prior to destruction of data, you would like to access your data, I will endeavour to facilitate access. It will not be possible to facilitate access following the destruction of Review data.


While all disclosures you make will be treated with care and confidentiality, there are circumstances in which we may be legally compelled to share your disclosures. You will be fully informed if such circumstances arise.

Peregrinus

I presume the emphasis is yours, not in the hypothetical original document?

Read the document as a coherent whole, not a series of disconnected statements. I think what it saying is: If you make a submission . . .

(1) Your submission or part of of it may be included in the final report. If it is, what appears in the report will be anonymised.

(2) Your submission will be recorded and kept for two years after publication of the final report. The record will then be destroyed.

(3) It is possible that we will be legally compelled to share your submission with someone. If this happens, you will be told.

Bikerman2019

Peregrinus wrote: »

I presume the emphasis is yours, not in the hypothetical original document?

Read the document as a coherent whole, not a series of disconnected statements. I think what it saying is: If you make a submission . . .

(1) Your submission or part of of it may be included in the final report. If it is, what appears in the report will be anonymised.

(2) Your submission will be recorded and kept for two years after publication of the final report. The record will then be destroyed.

(3) It is possible that we will be legally compelled to share your submission with someone. If this happens, you will be told.

Hypothetically again.


Say you put in a submission like a whistleblower, that it is stated that policy is if you are aware of something, you must report to Mr Paddy, (but Mr Paddy has shown themselves to be two faced, forgetful when desired, and dishonest. Overreaching, unpleasant, untrustworthy, " and in short, a person who claims all is in order, but in truth, a person / people cannot go to them as they have no confidence in them whatsoever), is the whistleblower open to legal sanction? Random examples would be legislation like Health and Safety, or Children First.

ohnonotgmail

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Hypothetically again.


Say you put in a submission like a whistleblower, that it is stated that policy is if you are aware of something, you must report to Mr Paddy, (but Mr Paddy has shown themselves to be two faced, forgetful when desired, and dishonest. Overreaching, unpleasant, untrustworthy, " and in short, a person who claims all is in order, but in truth, a person / people cannot go to them as they have no confidence in them whatsoever), is the whistleblower open to legal sanction? Random examples would be legislation like Health and Safety, or Children First.

if have an obligation to report then you must report. what legal sanctions are you thinking of?

Bikerman2019

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if have an obligation to report then you must report. what legal sanctions are you thinking of?

Failure to report a situation perhaps? Some cases can be handled very well by direct contact, where legislation that I am unsure of the details, may or may not, demand reporting to designated person or Tusla or whatever relevant body.

The issue would be that the designated person Mr Paddy, has shown previously they are not a person with integrity, although there are other descriptions above in this thread.

A lot of policy is based on visual we do this and we do that, but in reality, poor performance results in "of course we do,"

Policy is talk to Paddy,. But in your heart and soul, you cannot and there is widespread opinion about Paddy that is not flattering, they are untouchable.

ohnonotgmail

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Failure to report a situation perhaps? Some cases can be handled very well by direct contact, where legislation that I am unsure of the details, may or may not, demand reporting to designated person or Tusla or whatever relevant body.

The issue would be that the designated person Mr Paddy, has shown previously they are not a person with integrity, although there are other descriptions above in this thread.

A lot of policy is based on visual we do this and we do that, but in reality, poor performance results in "of course we do,"

Policy is talk to Paddy,. But in your heart and soul, you cannot and there is widespread opinion about Paddy that is not flattering, they are untouchable.

I really don't understand the question. if you have an obligation to report you must do so in a form that is prescribed. Who you report to has no bearing on that obligation.

Bikerman2019

1. All of your contributions will be anonymised to prevent you from being identifiable.

2. While all disclosures you make will be treated with care and confidentiality, there are circumstances in which we may be legally compelled to share your disclosures. You will be fully informed if such circumstances arise.

Apologies, trying to word it correctly.
If you make a submission which is supposed to be anonymised as said above, can you be named or held to account for the info you hold either by a body or person named.

Quite often, a chat to parents about an issue is quite sufficient, where if a DP person, who has previously blown things up and caused harm, may make a person think twice before going there again.

Peregrinus

You've chosen a confusing example, Bikerman, because you have two possible wrongs here, and I'm not sure which one you're asking about.

Scenario: In the company you work for, you are obliged to report certain issues to Mr. Untrustworthy. You don't trust Mr. Untrustworthy to deal with those issues, or to treat fairly people who report them.

First possible wrong: An issue arises. You don't report it to Mr. Untrustworthy. Are you at legal risk as a result of having failed to report it?

Second possible wrong: A review of they company's operations, processes, protocols, etc is under way. Your submission is invited. You make a submission stating your opinion that Mr. Untrustworthy should not be trusted, and explaining why you think that. Are you at legal risk for having said such things about Mr. Untrustworthy?

Which of these two questions are you asking?

Bikerman2019

Peregrinus wrote: »

You've chosen a confusing example, Bikerman, because you have two possible wrongs here, and I'm not sure which one you're asking about.

Scenario: In the company you work for, you are obliged to report certain issues to Mr. Untrustworthy. You don't trust Mr. Untrustworthy to deal with those issues, or to treat fairly people who report them.

First possible wrong: An issue arises. You don't report it to Mr. Untrustworthy. Are you at legal risk as a result of having failed to report it?

Second possible wrong: A review of they company's operations, processes, protocols, etc is under way. Your submission is invited. You make a submission stating your opinion that Mr. Untrustworthy should not be trusted, and explaining why you think that. Are you at legal risk for having said such things about Mr. Untrustworthy?

Which of these two questions are you asking?

Both! Thank you for replying

Peregrinus

Then I think the answer is:

First possible wrong: If it's a requirement of your employment that you report particular matters to Mr Untrustworthy and you don't, they you may face disciplinary proceedings. You can raise your concerns about Mr Untrustworthy in those proceedings, but the focus of the proceedings will not be on him; it will be on you, and your failure to report the issue.

Second possible wrong: Although obviously they will work hard to prevent your identity as a complainant becoming known, they can't guarantee that it won't, and they make that clear. So you should assume that there is a non-zero chance that it will become known. The chance seems to me to be very small, but it's not zero.

If it does become known, that is obviously likely to cause - ahem - some social and personal coolness between you and Mr Untrustworthy, which - ahem - could affect the work environment, if at that stage you are both still employed there.

Could it cause you a legal problem? Unlikely. As far as defamation is concerned, the submission you make to the enquiry is covered by what is known as qualified privilege. You are not trumpeting Mr Untrustworthy's failing from the rooftops; you are reporting them to people who have a legitimate interest in knowing about them, and you yourself have a legitimate interest in supporting the enquiry established by your employer. And you are - I presume - not actuated by malice; you genuinely and reasonably believe that the things you say to the enquiry about Mr Untrustworthy are true.

All of which means that, even if he finds out that you said these things about him to the enquiry, he can't sue you.

Which is not to say that the social and personal consequences might not be very grave. But the legal consequences, not so much.