Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Kardassian Vulture

MUA the subject of whistle-blowing over dangerous failings

Recommended Posts

This link to    https://www.judgments.im/content/ET%2018-27%20Alfred%20Jones%20v%20MUA%20(phr%202).pdf   is the Jan19 report of whistle-blowing case against the MUA by a worker who resigned over the dire safety standards,and cover ups, under which the MUA operates.For instance,they knew about and ignored the existence of rotten poles carrying live wires which blew down onto cars.Paragraph 39 demonstrates these coverups and the lack of any documentary evidence maintained over safety and even asbestos issues, shows that management were failing to record any safety breaches in accordance with H&S law,and did nothing to remedy those failings when identified by the claimant.How can we trust the MUA with our safety when they exhibit no regard for any whatsoever.How can they promote electrical safety when they have the worst attitude towards it.

The problem with this case is that,yet again, as always,it involves Douglas Stewart 'acting'  as judge.Every whistle-blowing case against the Government has this guy as Head of the panel,despite the panel being randomly selected,in theory.Tell-tale signs that this will not go well for the claimant is spread around the pdf.Firstly,the narrowing down of the disclosures to far fewer to reduce the seriousness of the case.Secondly,and most importantly,Stewart casts a blackened characterisation of the claimant using the words 'control freak' amongst others.This,a tactic he has used before to malign the claimants and his claims in the eyes of the public.An attempt to discredit the claimant,but uses no such characterisations against anyone else especially as some appear to have lied repeatedly. The claimants character has little to do with making disclosures that have protected the public and MUA workers.Having read this,I would no longer feels safe having anyone from MUA fixing a light bulb TBH.

Douglas Stewart has once again allowed this to be a two part case,ostensibly delaying it to increase the pressure on the claimant.This is a regular tactic.Make it last as long as possible.No doubt he will also allow the MUA to introduce a shed load of new and complex evidence on the eveining before the next part begins in Court.

Whistle-Blowers rarely win,and even if they do,they often do not recover careers,jobs,or lives.It's

       TIME WE STARTED TO SUPPORT PEOPLE WHOSE SELFLESS WORDS AND DEEDS KEEP US SAFE AND EXPOSE NEGLIGENCE, DECEIT, THEFT, FRAUD,EMBEZZLEMENT WHILST THEY PUT THEMSELVES ON THE LINE IN THE MOST MAJOR WAY POSSIBLE.THEY DO IT FOR US.IT'S TIME WE SUPPORTED THEM!

Google:Philipa Whitford:“Not being listened to is almost the least that can happen to a whistleblower, in that often they suffer detriment or reprisals and even lose their jobs.”

Google:Minh Alexande: “It’s rare for any whistleblowers who are involved in prolonged battles of this sort not to develop some form of anxiety or depressive disorder eventually. You can only hold out for so long.What employers do is they deflect from the public interest issues and turn the whole thing into an employment issue which pathologises the whistleblower.It becomes a witch hunt about trying to claim that the whistleblower is a difficult person, that they are a troublemaker, they are the problem.”

WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO PUT YOUR JOB, CAREER, REPUTATION, HEALTH AND SANITY ON THE LINE FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS ?

Show your support for change,comment below -

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone died? No...

Are my lights still on? Yes...

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Has anyone died? No...

Are my lights still on? Yes...

Next time your mamas house burns down due to a fire whilst you are tucked up with your teddy bear,your granny dies whilst doing your ironing and no-one knows why (electrical fires are the most commionost), or a rotten pole kills you in your car-more common than you think, will you still say the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.judgments.im/content/ET 18-27 Alfred Jones v MUA (phr 2).pdf

The claimant raised 27 instances of whistleblowing in his case. He only had to get home on one. Mr Stewart found he got home on 4.

What was important about this? Well, like other cases, if you make a protected ( whistle blowing ) disclosure the financial limits on Tribunal awards are removed.

Its a necessary preliminary point.

Mr Stewart doesn’t characterise the claimant as a control freak. That was alleged by MUA witnesses. He had to record it.

The judgment is highly critical of the MUA in respect of several others of the 23 incidents which were not found to be protected disclosures.

Its a thorough decision, well written and cogent.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that bollocks to basically determine whether the disclosures were protected or not. But still nothing seemingly done to address the issues actually raised. You wouldn’t see this in the private sector as I doubt it would have to be challenged. Whether the disclosures are protected or not what is actually being done to ensure whether any of the issues raised actually need to be redressed or remedied by the MUA? 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Whistle blower or shit stirrer. Who decides ?

Brave man, as you would know that in doing so that your life is over on the island!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, finlo said:

Brave man, as you would know that in doing so that your life is over on the island!

Yes, pretty much - that’s a career killer so only done where you genuinely believe things are being covered up and ignored. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, finlo said:

Brave man, as you would know that in doing so that your life is over on the island!

I was not specifically talking about the afore mentioned, just "whistle blowers" in general.

I could give you several instances of these things being vexatious. and very damaging.

Fair do's though in genuine cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I was not specifically talking about the afore mentioned, just "whistle blowers" in general.

I could give you several instances of these things being vexatious. and very damaging.

I’d say that in closed community like the IOM it’s very rarely vexatious as people tend never to be able to work again when these things happen as word gets round. Especially when those they complain about start the nasty rumour and bullying chains amongst all their mates. It tends to make people unemployable. So I’d say it’s very rarely someone just shit-stirring. I’ve had a friend of mine who was in governent who had to leave the Island after making formal complaints. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MrPB said:

I’d say that in closed community like the IOM it’s very rarely vexatious as people tend never to be able to work again when these things happen as word gets round. Especially when those they complain about start the nasty rumour and bullying chains amongst all their mates. It tends to make people unemployable. So I’d say it’s very rarely someone just shit-stirring. I’ve had a friend of mine who was in governent who had to leave the Island after making formal complaints. 

I hold a totally opposing view. Far too many people, usually in Gov. posts make vexatious claims knowing full well that they are virtually unsackable. ( I know that is not a word )

I know Alfie and have done since his spanner days. I am not judging him, just the many who will or have mirrored claims without ( in their cases) any substance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Alfie too, and have worked 'with' him (I am not, and never have been, an employee of the MUA or MU). I always found him to be very professional, very conscientious, diligent, friendly and very health and safety conscious. I wish Alfie all the very best and hope that he got the outcome he intended to get 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dilligaf said:

I hold a totally opposing view. Far too many people, usually in Gov. posts make vexatious claims knowing full well that they are virtually unsackable. ( I know that is not a word )

I don’t agree and to be fair from many of your recent comments on here you give the impression of someone who is perhaps part of the cultural problem places like government has. I know a few people who have really suffered having raised genuine issues with management only to be bullied and abused out of jobs much to their eternal regret. I simply don’t buy your view based on some of the people I’ve seen get totally burned for trying to raise legitimate concerns with management. They weren’t vexatious, they were professional people concerned about failed service delivery and appalling management who were putting the public at risk.

Edited by MrPB
Spelling
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×