POL00423252
POL00423252
Message
From:
on behalf of i
Sent: 11/06/2013 11:07:18
To: Jessica Madro!
Subject: RE: Disclosure line & agency branches
Hi Jessica,
Many apologies for the very long delay in responding in turn - as usual other events have conspired to occupy me!
We had an RMG-provided line in place and available to the whole network for three years so I think we've grappled with
some of these issues before. Would you have time for a brief chat sometime next week so I can get an indication of how
best to take this forward?
Thanks,
Georgina
From: Jessica Madron
Sent: 05 April 2013 15:51
To: Georgina Blair
Cc: Kate Newton; kate.newmari
Subject: RE: Disclosure line & 4d
Georgina,
Apologies for the delay in replying on this.
I have spoken to Kate Newman at Bond Pearce on this and my understanding is this:
1. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects an employee/worker who makes a “protected disclosure” from
being dismissed by his/her employer.
2. Our subpostmasters and other agents are not our employees or workers, and therefore do not benefit from the
protection of this Act in terms of their contractual relationship with POL.
3. Their staff are not employees or workers of POL either, although they may be employees of the subpostmaster.
However, POL cannot ensure that the subpostmaster complies with its statutory obligations under the Act if an
employee “whistle-blows” against a subpostmaster-employer.
4. For these reasons, a whistle-blowing subpostmaster or employee of a subpostmaster is likely to want to do so
anonymously/confidentially. This will make it difficult for POL to take certain kinds of action in reliance on the
whistle-blower’s information (e.g it will be difficult to terminate a subpostmaster’s contract based on what one
of his employees tells us anonymously about his contract-breaching activities, unless we gather some further
corroborative evidence ourselves).
5. Kate has advised that because we need to distinguish subpostmasters and their staff as not being our
employees, we should have a separate helpline number for them and should have speraate comms to explain
their position under the Act and to also explain what kinds of things we will not be able to investigate (i.e any
issues between the subpostmaster and his employee cannot be reported through this helpline).
6. Kate’s view is that POL’s supplier of this helpline service should be familiar with operating 2 forms of helpline
service, through 2 phone numbers and with different comms, and that we should ask them to produce some
materials for us to review. I would be happy to help in reviewing any drafts if you wish.
7. \’mconcerned about the process proposed for complaints about multiples — if these are just sent straight to the
multiple, is this not abdicating our own responsibility to investigate issues in our network? How will we preserve
confidentiality/anonymity in these cases?
POL00423252
POL00423252
I hope this helps.
Kate — if I’ve misunderstood anything, please do say.
Many thanks
Kind Regards
Jessica Madron
Principal Lawyer
Legal & Compliance
My working days are Tuesday to Friday.
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
. www.postoffice.co.uk
@postofficenews
©O©O@O©OOCO®
From: Georgina Blair
Sent: 21 March 2013 14:13
To: Jessica Madron
Subject: FW: Disclosure line & agency branches
Hi Jessica,
Did you ask for any external advice on this one?
Thanks,
Georgina
Georgina Blair I Regulatory Risk Business Partner
From: Georgina Blair
Sent: 12 March 2013 12:14
To: Jessica Madron
Cc: Michael R Haworth
Subject: Disclosure line & agency branches
POL00423252
POL00423252
Hi Jessica,
As discussed, we are setting up our own disclosure (whistleblowing) line as the current arrangement with RMG comes to
an end. The line will be available to agents as well as Post Office employees, and will be publicised as a ‘line of last
resort’ to report suspected or known wrongdoing relating to Post Office matters when the usual routes to report issues
(Grapevine, NBSC, Area Sales Manager, line manager etc) are not felt to be appropriate. The line will be provided by a
third party specialist provider, who will send reports received via the line to a small team in HRSC, who will then issue
the reports to the appropriate area for investigation. If reports relate to our multiple partners they will be sent to a
nominated contact at the relevant partner.
Paul Inwood is concerned that offering the line to agents and their assistants will blur the line between agents and
employees. We cannot afford to ignore issues in the bulk of the network, but I understand that this is a very tricky area
and will need to be managed carefully. For example, if an agent’s assistant rings up and says the sub-postmaster is
selling cigarettes to minors, what are we supposed to do about it? (Is there a legal requirement to report this to
anybody?) What if an agent’s assistant rings up and says the sub-postmaster is bullying her?
We will need to tailor our comms very carefully, and can also tailor the call handler’s script and the messages around the
web reporting portal to explain which matters we can and can’t deal with. Any guidance on what we can and can’t say,
and should and shouldn’t do, when dealing with agents and their assistants, would be helpful.
Thanks,
Georgina
Georgina Blair I Regulatory Risk Business Partner