How the Philip Landau Fraud Began

In the UK, employers must have a written grievance procedure, follow the Acas Code of Practice for fairness (prompt investigation, unbiased hearings, written decisions), and protect employees from retaliation for raising issues like discrimination or health & safety concerns, with failure to do so risking Employment Tribunal penalties. Key responsibilities include investigating promptly, holding fair hearings (allowing companions), communicating decisions in writing, and offering an appeal stage, all while preventing victimisation under laws like the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010.

In the UK, if a grievance involves whistleblowing, employers must handle it carefully under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA); they cannot dismiss or victimize a worker for making a “protected disclosure” (reporting wrongdoing in the public interest). The employer must follow proper procedures, address the disclosure as a serious concern (even if it’s also a personal grievance like bullying), and avoid detrimental actions (like bullying or demotion), or face automatic unfair dismissal claims and uncapped tribunal compensation. Failure to act can lead to vicarious liability for colleague actions and significant penalties, including uplifts for not following ACAS codes of practice.

If an employment solicitor recommends an NDA that illegally bars a whistleblower from reporting fraud or crimes to authorities, it can be considered a serious ethical breach, potentially unlawful, and could be seen as facilitating fraud or obstruction, but whether it’s technically “fraud” depends on intent and jurisdiction; it’s more accurately a violation of whistleblower laws and regulations like those from the SEC, which have penalized companies for such restrictive agreements, highlighting that such clauses are often unenforceable and legally risky for all parties.

Illegal non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are frequently used to retaliate against whistleblowers by intimidating them into silence, but federal agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and SEC, OSHA, and CFPB are actively cracking down, stating such NDAs undermine protections and can lead to penalties for employers, as they obstruct reporting of crimes like fraud, antitrust violations, and securities fraud. Federal laws and regulations deem NDAs unenforceable when they try to prevent reporting misconduct to government bodies, ensuring whistleblowers can exercise their rights to report illegal activity.

Norway’s Working Environment Act (WEA), specifically Chapter 2 A, provides a strong framework for whistleblower protection, including the right to report censurable conditions and a prohibition against retaliation. The law also includes provisions for confidentiality, though the specific handling of identity can be complex. Employees have the legal right to report “censurable conditions,” which include breaches of laws, ethical guidelines, or general ethical norms (e.g., danger to life or health, corruption, an unsatisfactory work environment, harassment). In some serious situations, employees have a duty to report. Confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements that attempt to prevent an employee from making legitimate disclosures, particularly those related to workplace misconduct or criminal offenses, are generally void and unenforceable under Norwegian law.

In the UK, whistleblower retaliation for reporting wrongdoing (like perverting the course of justice) is primarily addressed under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), making it illegal for employers to dismiss or detrimentally treat workers for blowing the whistle, with recourse through employment tribunals, though the system faces criticism for being employment-focused, leading some to seek US avenues. While PIDA protects against unfair treatment, the specific offense of “perverting the course of justice” involves actions like intimidating witnesses or obstructing investigations, which carries criminal penalties and can apply to those retaliating against whistleblowers, potentially leading to arrest and prosecution for those who threaten witnesses or evidence.

The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) in the UK makes confidentiality clauses, or “gagging clauses,” that try to stop employees from making legally protected whistleblowing disclosures void and unenforceable, protecting workers who report wrongdoing in the public interest, even within settlement agreements. While such clauses are legally ineffective for preventing whistleblowing, they can still create a chilling effect; employers must ensure agreements don’t deter disclosures, and employees should seek advice if they encounter them.

A whistleblower can only receive protection under the UK Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) if they reasonably believe they are disclosing information in the public interest. This is also known as making a ‘qualifying disclosure’.

A whistleblower must reasonably believe that one or more of the following matters is either happening now, took place in the past, or is likely to happen in the future:

– a criminal offence

– the breach of a legal obligation

– a miscarriage of justice

– a danger to the health and safety of any individual

– damage to the environment

– deliberate concealment of information about any of the above.