- Statement
1.1 Quant Foundry Limited (“Company”) is committed to the highest standards of openness, probity and accountability.
1.2 An essential aspect of accountability and transparency is a mechanism to enable staff and other members of the Company to voice concerns responsibly and effectively.
1.3 It is a fundamental term of every contract of employment that an employee will faithfully serve his or her employer and not disclose confidential information about the employer’s affairs.
1.4 Where an individual discovers information which they believe shows serious malpractice or wrongdoing within the organisation then this information should be disclosed internally without fear of reprisal, and there should be arrangements to enable this to be done independently of line management. - Reference
2.1The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which came into effect in 1999, gives legal protection to employees against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of publicly disclosing concerns. The Company has endorsed provisions to ensure that no members of staff should feel at a disadvantage in raising legitimate concerns.
2.2 This policy is intended to assist individuals who believe they have discovered malpractice or impropriety. It is not designed to question financial or business decisions taken by the Company nor should it be used to reconsider any matters which have been addressed under harassment, complaint, disciplinary or other procedures. Once the “whistleblowing” procedures are in place, it is reasonable to expect staff to use them rather than air their complaints outside the Company. - Scope of Policy
3.1 This policy is designed to enable employees of the Company to raise concerns internally and at a high level and to disclose information which the individual believes shows malpractice or impropriety. This policy is intended to cover matters which are in the public interest and may at least initially be investigated separately but might then lead to the invocation of other procedures. These concerns could include: –
• Financial malpractice or impropriety or fraud
• Failure to comply with a legal obligation or Statutes
• Dangers to Health & Safety or the environment
• Criminal activity
• Improper conduct or unethical behaviour
• Attempts to conceal any of these - Safeguards
4.1 This policy is designed to offer protection to those employees of the Company who disclose such concerns provided the disclosure is made: –
• In good faith
• In the reasonable belief of the individual communicating that it tends to show malpractice or impropriety and if they make the disclosure to an appropriate person (see below).
4.2 Quant Foundry offers no protection from internal disciplinary procedures to those who choose not to use the procedure. In an extreme case, malicious or wild allegations could give rise to legal action on the part of the persons complained.
4.3 The Company will treat all such disclosures confidentially and sensitively. Quant Foundry will keep the identity of the individual making the allegation confidential so long as it does not hinder or frustrate any investigation. However, the investigation process may reveal the source of the information and the individual making the disclosure may need to provide a statement as part of the evidence required.
4.3 This policy encourages individuals to put their name to any disclosures they make. Concerns expressed anonymously are much less credible, but they may be considered at the discretion of the Company.
4.4 In exercising this discretion, the factors to be taken into account will include: –
• The seriousness of the issues raised
• The credibility of the concern
• The likelihood of confirming the allegation from attributable sources
4.5 If an individual makes an allegation in good faith, which is endorsed by subsequent investigation, no action will be taken against that individual. In making a disclosure, the individual should exercise due care to ensure the accuracy of the information. If, however, an individual makes malicious or vexatious allegations, and particularly if he or she persists with making them, disciplinary action may be taken against that individual.
5.Procedures for Making a Disclosure
5.1 On receipt of a complaint of malpractice, the member of staff who receives and takes note of the complaint, must pass this information as soon as is reasonably possible, to the appropriate designated investigating officer as follows:
• A managing director will investigate complaints of malpractice
• Complaints against a managing director should be passed to another managing director
• The complainant has the right to bypass their line management to a managing director if he/she feels that the administration without any conflict of interest can more appropriately investigate the complaint.
5.2 Should none of the above routes be suitable or acceptable to the complainant, then the complainant may approach one of the following individuals who has been designated and trained as independent points of contact under this procedure. They can advise the complainant on the implications of the legislation and the possible internal and external avenues of complaint open to them.
5.3 If there is evidence of criminal activity then the investigating officer should inform the police. The Company will ensure that an internal investigation does not hinder a formal police investigation.
6. Timescales
6.1 Due to the varied nature of these sorts of complaints, which may involve internal investigators and the police, it is not possible to lay down precise timescales for such investigations. The officer should ensure that the investigations are undertaken as quickly as possible without affecting the quality and depth of those investigations.
6.2 The officer, should as soon as practically possible, send a written acknowledgement of the concern to the complainant and thereafter report back to them in writing the outcome of the investigation and on the action that is proposed. If the investigation is a prolonged one, the officer should keep the complainant informed, in writing, as to the progress of the investigation and as to when it is likely to be concluded.
6.3 All responses to the complainant should be in writing and sent to their home address.
7 Investigating Procedure
7.1 The investigating officer should follow these steps:
• Obtain full details and clarifications of the complaint
• Inform the member of staff against whom the complaint is made as soon as is practically possible
Inform the member of the staff of their right to be accompanied by a trade union or other representative at any future interview or hearing held under the provision of these procedures.
• Consider the involvement of the Company auditors and the Police at this stage and should consult with the Chairman / Chief Executive
• Investigate the allegations fully with the assistance where appropriate, of other bodies.
• Judge the complaint and validity of the complaint. Detail the rationale in a written report containing the findings of the investigations and reasons for the judgement
• Pass the report to the managing directors
• The managing directors decide what action to take. If the complaint is shown to be justified, then they will invoke the disciplinary or other appropriate Company procedures.
• Keep the complainant informed of the progress of the investigations and, if appropriate, of the final outcome.
• If appropriate, pass a copy of the outcomes to the Company Auditors to enable a review of the procedures.
7.2 If the complainant is not satisfied that their concern is being properly dealt with by the investigating officer, they have the right to raise it in confidence with the managing directors, or one of the designated persons described above.
7.3 If the investigation finds the allegations unsubstantiated and all internal procedures have been exhausted, but the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, the Company recognises the lawful rights of employees and ex-employees to make disclosures to prescribed persons (such as the Health and Safety Executive, the Audit Commission, or the utility regulators), or, where justified, elsewhere.