Picture by Caio
SITUATION
There is an article on internet that labels me as a "whistleblower", that is, an individual who, without authorization, reveals private or classified information about an organization, usually related to wrongdoing or misconduct. The article also indicates that I was dismissed by email overnight. (1/10)
It is incorrect to say that I was a “whistleblower”.
At the time, I was an Internal Audit Manager. My job was to conduct audits to detect irregularities and, through my line manager, report them, together with recommendations to address them, to the Internal Audit Committee, which reported to the company's Board of Directors. (2/10)
Picture by Mikhail Nilov
Picture by Sora Shimazaki
FACTS AND EVIDENCE
I received my dismissal by email with effect from the following day.
In a first hearing, the employment tribunal granted me interim relief, a temporary remedy available under UK PIDA (Public Interest Disclosure Act). It aims to protect people who disclose information in the public interest (e.g., fraud, bribery, corruption...). My internal audit reports sent, through my line manager, to the Internal Audit Committee, that reported to the Board of Directors, could be considered similar to a disclosure in the public interest.
At a final hearing, the tribunal concluded that my dismissal was not due to what I reported in my internal audit reports but to my style of writing. It also concluded that my dismissal was unfair and wrongful.
At no point in this judgement is it mentioned that I was a "whistleblower".
I can provide a copy of this judgement as evidence. Just send me an email to my contact email below. (3/10)
So, how did I come to find myself with my reputation tarnished on the internet after being incorrectly labeled a "whistleblower" and with the facts told one-sidedly and out of context?
Picture by Nataliya Vaitkevich
It turned out that the interim relief awarded at the first hearing was taxed by HMRC (UK tax authorities) as if it was a salary.
I claimed a refund of these taxes from HMRC, because the interim relief was not a salary, but an award granted by an employment tribunal in relation to an unfair dismissal most likely due to having raised protected disclosures.
HMRC, however, did not accept this claim. Interim relief was unusual and there was no case law or tax legislation on the matter. (4/10)
After some two years of discussions with HMRC, they informed me that their process had come to an end.
Since we could not reach common ground, the only option was to go to a First Tier Tax (FTT) tribunal for a final conclusion.
I explained to the FTT tribunal the legal point I was defending and the tribunal concluded on my favour. This was a landmark case in the UK. And it was a huge achievement for me.
This achievement was even greater when one realises that I had no tax or legal advice, and that the FTT tribunals have a reputation of being very demanding. (5/10)
Picture by Cottonbro Studio
It was this
FTT tribunal that,
in its judgment, labeled me as a "whistleblower" and only said that I was dismissed overnight, without any further explanation or context.
As it was a landmark case, a tax lawyer immediately decided to write an article about it using the same words as those used by the FTT tribunal. This is the article on internet.
This lawyer and his law firm have been informed, on my part, of the incorrect and misleading use of the word “whistleblower”, as well as of the complete and accurate facts. They have amended the article, albeit there is no mention to my style of writing, as per the Employment Tribunal judgment. As I said above, I can provide a coy of it. Additionally, on internet there are still some traces to the incorrect facts. (6/10)
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that I was a "whistleblower" because that word conveys a different message, namely that I, disloyally, washed the dirty linen of the company in public, when this is not what I did.
I only fulfilled the duties of my role by reporting about wrongdoings and irregularities to the Internal Audit Committee, via my line manager. The only thing I could have been blamed for was my style of writing. (7/10)
Picture by Cottonbro Studio
Internal Audit is a similar function to that performed by the partners of the Big4, the large audit firms, Deloitte, Price, KPMG, E&Y. When they report adjustments to the financial statements in the audit reports that they send to the Board of Directors of the company they audit, we do not call them "whistleblowers". (8/10)
Picture by Rodnae Productions
In the United States, last December 2022, a US Tribunal Judgment was released in which two Internal Audit Chief Execs and the Chief Risk Officer (CRO) of Wells Fargo were sanctioned for not having reported internally the wrongdoings and irregularities, as they clearly did not fulfill the duties of their roles. I did the exact opposite, I reported internally following the internal communication lines and as per the duties of my role. (9/10)
More information on this judgement can be viewed at the following link:
Two Audit Execs and CRO fined for not fulfilling the duties of their roles
Further, as per the SEC, a person reporting wrongdoings internally following the internal communication lines is not considered to be a whistleblower.
I hope to have cleared up the confusion and misunderstanding that the article published by the tax law firm on the internet is causing, and to have cleared up as well any doubts about my professional attitude and behaviour at all times, something to which I am always committed, whether as an employee, or as an advisor and consultant.
On the other hand, I hope my style of writing makes for an easy reading and understanding. End.
AMBASSADOR OF ASSURANCE
