1st December 2011, 11:42 PM
Hi there, just to clarify the point on anonymous complaints. It’s a bit of a yes and no situation...
If you are referring to the article in the DF newsletter, then as it clearly states, the DF (or any other SIG) can make a complaint on your behalf and keep your name out of the system. As we say in the article this means you can contact us and give us solid evidence. We guarantee your anonymity from that point. If the evidence is good enough then we can take forward a case based on that evidence. We won’t mention your names to anyone without your consent. Ever. If the case will fall apart without your evidence then we will let it fail rather than name a whistleblower.
Take a case where someone is working as self-employed for a unit headed by a MIfA, but they are payed well below an equivalent PIfA rate for the job. DF get tipped off, get shown sufficient proof to satisfy ourselves that there is a case to answer, and put in a complaint as the DF, not naming the originator. It is our names on the complaint. The originator doesn't need to be named as the IfA investigating officer can simply demand to know what the day rates are from the MIfA. If it gets to the point where we need the evidence and it would expose the originator then we regrettably walk away. The names never get given to anyone else.
Of course its easier if we have more evidence, and people are prepared to stand by their complaints, but as diggers we all realise that isn’t always possible. That will mean some complaints won't be possible under this system, but we're trying to make a start.
So it’s a case of yes, and no.
We have recieved a number of verbal complaints relating to one unit regarding their pay, but after looking into it they aren't an RO and their top brass aren't in the IfA so we can't do anything at all about it.
Get in touch?
Chiz
If you are referring to the article in the DF newsletter, then as it clearly states, the DF (or any other SIG) can make a complaint on your behalf and keep your name out of the system. As we say in the article this means you can contact us and give us solid evidence. We guarantee your anonymity from that point. If the evidence is good enough then we can take forward a case based on that evidence. We won’t mention your names to anyone without your consent. Ever. If the case will fall apart without your evidence then we will let it fail rather than name a whistleblower.
Take a case where someone is working as self-employed for a unit headed by a MIfA, but they are payed well below an equivalent PIfA rate for the job. DF get tipped off, get shown sufficient proof to satisfy ourselves that there is a case to answer, and put in a complaint as the DF, not naming the originator. It is our names on the complaint. The originator doesn't need to be named as the IfA investigating officer can simply demand to know what the day rates are from the MIfA. If it gets to the point where we need the evidence and it would expose the originator then we regrettably walk away. The names never get given to anyone else.
Of course its easier if we have more evidence, and people are prepared to stand by their complaints, but as diggers we all realise that isn’t always possible. That will mean some complaints won't be possible under this system, but we're trying to make a start.
So it’s a case of yes, and no.
We have recieved a number of verbal complaints relating to one unit regarding their pay, but after looking into it they aren't an RO and their top brass aren't in the IfA so we can't do anything at all about it.
Get in touch?
Chiz