This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/28/treasury-ordered-pay-whistleblower-civil-servant-david-owen

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Treasury ordered to pay £142,000 to ‘whistleblower’ former civil servant Treasury ordered to pay £142,000 to ‘whistleblower’ former civil servant
(about 3 hours later)
The Treasury has been ordered to pay £142,000 to a former senior civil servant after refusing to carry out a previous tribunal’s ruling that he should be found another job.The Treasury has been ordered to pay £142,000 to a former senior civil servant after refusing to carry out a previous tribunal’s ruling that he should be found another job.
David Owen, the department’s former head of national insurance policy, was awarded the money this week after the Treasury declined to re-employ him. He was forced to leave his job after accusing colleagues of trying to secretly kill off a proposal by David Gauke, a Treasury minister.David Owen, the department’s former head of national insurance policy, was awarded the money this week after the Treasury declined to re-employ him. He was forced to leave his job after accusing colleagues of trying to secretly kill off a proposal by David Gauke, a Treasury minister.
The Treasury has refused to disclose the total amount of public money spent fighting the case and refused to say why it had not adhered to the previous ruling and given Owen another job.The Treasury has refused to disclose the total amount of public money spent fighting the case and refused to say why it had not adhered to the previous ruling and given Owen another job.
The head of Britain’s most prominent whistleblowing charity said it was staggering that the Treasury had chosen to ignore an employment tribunal and rack up unnecessary costs. Cathy James, chief executive of Public Concern at Work, said the case demonstrates that much more needs to be done to protect whistleblowers. The head of Britain’s most prominent whistleblowing charity said it was staggering that the Treasury had chosen to ignore an employment tribunal and rack up unnecessary costs. Cathy James, the chief executive of Public Concern at Work, said the case demonstrated that much more needed to be done to protect whistleblowers.
She said: “It beggars belief that the Treasury did not follow the tribunal’s order to re-employ Mr Owen but instead chose to fight this case to the bitter end, resulting in huge costs to the taxpayer. How can we trust what government says about the commitment to protect whistleblowers if this is how their own departments behave?”She said: “It beggars belief that the Treasury did not follow the tribunal’s order to re-employ Mr Owen but instead chose to fight this case to the bitter end, resulting in huge costs to the taxpayer. How can we trust what government says about the commitment to protect whistleblowers if this is how their own departments behave?”
Owen’s dispute began after he accused mandarins of attempting to scupper a policy proposed by Gauke. In the runup to the 2011 budget, chancellor George Osborne asked for a note on the proposal, a sign that it was under serious consideration. Owen’s dispute began after he accused mandarins of attempting to scupper a policy proposed by Gauke. In the runup to the 2011 budget, the chancellor, George Osborne, asked for a note on the proposal, a sign that it was under serious consideration. Owen claimed his colleagues placed excessive emphasis on risks associated with implementing the policy, after officials at HM Revenue & Customs indicated they did not like it.
Owen claimed his colleagues placed excessive emphasis on risks associated with implementing the policy, after officials at HM Revenue & Customs indicated they did not like it. The subsequent tribunal ruled that Owen’s dismissal was “seriously flawed in a number of important respects”, saying the Treasury “did not act reasonably”.
The subsequent tribunal ruled that the reason for Owen’s sacking was not because he had challenged a number of management decisions or because his relationship with his last manager had been difficult. It labelled his dismissal “seriously flawed in a number of important respects”, saying the Treasury “did not act reasonably”. It labelled his dismissal “seriously flawed in a number of important respects”, saying the Treasury “did not act reasonably”.
The Treasury has declined to say how much money has been spent on Owen’s case, but it is thought to be in the region of £500,000.The Treasury has declined to say how much money has been spent on Owen’s case, but it is thought to be in the region of £500,000.
Owen said: “It’s good it’s been confirmed I deserve my job back but the simple, just course would have been to take me back without a long, costly process.Owen said: “It’s good it’s been confirmed I deserve my job back but the simple, just course would have been to take me back without a long, costly process.
“I’m shocked that a government department is refusing to do as British justice has ordered. It feels wrong that I’m faced with a huge legal bill when how I was treated was so flawed that my dismissal was bound to be found unfair.”“I’m shocked that a government department is refusing to do as British justice has ordered. It feels wrong that I’m faced with a huge legal bill when how I was treated was so flawed that my dismissal was bound to be found unfair.”
The coalition government has faced scathing criticism for its treatment of whistleblowers. A Public Accounts Committee report last month found that those who risk their careers to uncover wrongdoing in public services are being victimised by managers who nearly always escape sanction. The coalition government has faced scathing criticism for its treatment of whistleblowers. A public accounts committee report last month found that those who risk their careers to uncover wrongdoing in public services were being victimised by managers who nearly always escape sanction.
MPs were told that only one senior manager who has victimised a whistleblower has ever faced disciplinary procedures, while many government departments are still failing to support employees who come forward in the public interest.MPs were told that only one senior manager who has victimised a whistleblower has ever faced disciplinary procedures, while many government departments are still failing to support employees who come forward in the public interest.
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to discuss Owen’s case. “We do not comment on individual employment matters. This matter is still the subject of an appeals process,” she said.A Treasury spokeswoman declined to discuss Owen’s case. “We do not comment on individual employment matters. This matter is still the subject of an appeals process,” she said.