outcome of whistleblowing

[ryanreynolds88]

I am a whistle blower in a major UK retailer. The company substantiated Gross Misconduct (food safety fraud) which happened over a long period of time including selling out of date baby formula in January with dates as far back as June, this affected all fresh and ambient products over many months.
But they actually gave the two part time managers only verbal warnings only for misconduct not Gross misconduct, kept in there positions, with the same hours.

Why would they lie about the outcome ?
Nor give dismissal for what they say is Gross misconduct ?

What are my rights regarding 'Detriment'?"
Why would they lie knowing this could be part of disclosure in a tribunal ?

They can conclude that something met the gross misconduct criteria, but choose not to administer the maximum penalty.

Any repercussions are generally ‘up to’ rather than ‘musts’. It’s slightly different in regulated professions but this sounds like shop management which isn’t one of those.

Protection for whistle blowing is generally up to your employers policy. Most say there should be no recriminations.

If you’re concerned about the outcome, start by going back to the whistle blowing contact route.

hey thank you for the comment scary,

The company claims they have 'discretion' on the penalty. But when that discretion is used to protect managers who committed criminal food safety fraud, while low-level staff are fired for minor errors, the discretion is being used to victimize the whistle blower. By not removing them, they have made the workplace unsafe.

Food retail is strictly regulated by The Food Safety Act 1990 and The General Food Regulations 2004. My understanding is Falsifying "Due Diligence" records is a criminal offense that can lead to personal prosecution for managers and massive fines for the store.

At what point does 'discretion' become a 'sham' to protect the management chain

A company can choose to protect its management chain.

Management decisions often are far muddier waters for disciplinary matters than low level staff. For low level staff it’s often a very black and white ‘rule was clear, person didn’t comply’. Whereas with management decisions there can often be a ‘that’s what I thought the more senior manager expected me to do’ component.

Allowing the managers that were complained about to stay in role isn’t victimisation in itself, their behaviour towards the whistleblower could be - but that’s a separate issue.

With regards to criminal activities within a company, the company can generally choose whether or not to report them to the police. It’s pretty common for them not to for a range of reasons.

You’ve also misunderstood the concept of a regulated profession. Most jobs have some regulations that apply to them (ones with food being a good example) but the staff themselves aren’t regulated. Whereas in other professions there are requirements on people who hold those roles (police, social workers, solicitors etc).

AM i the only person that wants to shout that it is St Valentines day not Valentines day.?

Ultimatu, unless you are an HR manager, those who would have considered the case are likely more qualified than you to reach an assessment on the reasons for what happened and the level of risk it might happen again.

Are those two emoyees started to treat you differently?