Abuse of Medical Assessments to Dismiss Whistleblowers

by a member of Whistleblowers Australia

Stories from whistleblowers suggests that a repeated and highly consistent aspect of the whistleblowing experience is the abuse by the employer of medical and psychiatric appointments as a mechanism for intimidating whistleblowers and avoiding the need to address the real issues.

Referral for psychiatric assessment comes after the whistleblower has persisted in raising a workplace issue of fraud, corruption or mismanagement which is internally investigated but not properly addressed. The referral may also come after the whistleblower has been formally charged with internal or external disciplinary charges based on a fabricated wrongdoing and where that charge or those charges have been dropped.

Removal of Support for the Whistleblower

In life outside an organisation, being falsely accused of wrongdoing is stressful. There are however, often people who will stand up for the accused, and evidence which can be obtained to defend oneself.

The effect of being falsely charged within an organisation is particularly stressful for the whistleblower for the following reasons:

• Dependence on the workplace for their own livelihood means potential supporters are much less likely to speak out and put themselves in a vulnerable position.
• Potential supporters might readily be bribed - their stand influenced by promises of overseas conference trips, promotions they have always wanted etc. Such messages are obvious to the recipient, to the whistleblower, and to those who are watching. Many people can fairly readily accept such bribes since they feel that their promotions and other opportunities are well deserved anyway. Not unexpectedly they take the line of least resistance. Those 'bribes' are a powerful way of influencing waverers - even if they are not recipients of the 'bribe'. They are subtle, since they are clear messages from management to staff, while at the same time being (fairly) readily explained away by management as being a normal part of the business if there is an inquiry.
• There is potential for the employer to encourage people who might be envious towards the whistleblower for some reason to speak out in particularly harsh terms, fabricate 'evidence', make up or embellish stories, etc.
• There is a tendency for a significant percentage of the workplace to strongly resent 'destabilisation' of the workplace and they focus their anger against the whistleblower rather than management since the whistleblower is a much easier target.
• The support mechanisms (human resource services for counselling, etc.) available within the workplace environment are not sufficiently independent of management. While such professionals might be highly trained in addressing workplace situations, much of that training focusses on assisting individuals to regain some kind of productive capacity, rather than confronting an incompetent or malicious management with a case of substantial victimisation or breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In spite of it being their responsibility, the option of supporting a somewhat confused, highly stressed, perhaps fearful, relatively junior individual against a group of calm, lying, coherent, senior managers presiding over an intimidated workplace, can sometimes be just too difficult for human resources staff.
• Since it clearly 'marks' the whistleblower, and from that point on others in the workplace either avoid them or treat them differently.
• The whistleblower is often assigned to menial duties to ensure this lowerered status is well recognised by others, and to further stress the whistleblower. They might be asked to photocopy reports, or assigned to menial task of the activity which they questioned.
• Administrative staff who, by their nature, spend a large part of their life making sure that things run smoothly within an organisation can react strongly against whistleblowers who object to carrying out maliciously motivated instructions. There can also be personal value system differences between whistleblowers adopting a questioning attitude towards management while administrative staff may have a preference for regulation implementation.
• The whistleblower is likely to have considerable difficulty coming to terms with the fact that the organisation, for whom they have worked long and hard and in which they believe, is now setting out "to get them".

Referral for Medical Assessment

The whistleblower, on the recommendation of their family doctor, often takes considerable time off work on stress leave and lodges a compensation claim for induced stress or victimisation against their employer.

Rather than now addressing the workplace issues, a vindictive management chooses to refer the employee for medical assessment. Management tries to make out that the whistleblower is (i) a malingerer and (ii) unfit for continued duty ... and therefore should be retired or dismissed.

Ironically, but not unexpectedly, whistleblowers often have very good work attendance up to the time they blow the whistle, but this fact is conveniently ignored by internal investigating agencies and by medical assessment agencies. Internal investigations also tend to ignore all the other blindingly obvious contradictions and indications that they are not being told the truth by managers about the workplace situation. (These must wait until much later when they are exposed in the media or in the courts.)

Regrettably, there are psychiatrists who are willing to give highly questionable opinion stating 'psychiatric disorder' or 'psychiatric illness' or 'psychosis' as the diagnosis.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that a number of government medical agencies (supposedly "independent medical advice") have been willing to accept false and misleading information from the employer, to pretend that the workplace issues do not exist, and recommend psychiatric assessment. Pressures for health service provider agencies to become self funding seem to have confused the role of delivering a "service" (outcome to the **satisfaction** of the referring body) with the need to offer an objective opinion.

A fair and independent assessment of the situation would involve identification and highlighting of the workplace issues rather further victimisation of the whistleblower. The mental health and safety of the workplace should also be taken into account by any medical assessment.

The Whistleblower's Challenge

The medical and psychiatric appointments of the whistleblower (supported by false and misleading information written by management) are for the following purpose:

• If the whistleblower is found to be "fit to continue" then it is just a matter for management to "shop around" for another opinion until they obtain a diagnosis wherein the whistleblower is "not fit to continue" - thereby dismissing the whistleblower.
• If the whistleblower is found to be "unfit for duty" then this is an easy means of dismissing the the whistleblower. The finding of "personality disorder" is also often interpreted as being a "pre-existing condition" and therefore dismissal can take place without any payment for the considerable damage to the whistleblower.
• Most significantly, if the whistleblower is found to be "unfit for duty" then management can indicate that it was all very unfortunate but the whistleblower was "found to be psychiatrically unfit to return to work" leaving the public (or any investigator) to fill in the gaps about the psychiatric state of the whistleblower and to doubt allegation made by the whistleblower. A journalist might be reluctant to pursue a story if he or she must explain and overcome the label of psychiatric disorder before convincing the public of the real issue.

Whistleblowers Australia Survey

Whistleblowers Australia is conducting a survey on abuse by health service providers who supply psychiatric findings to assist employers dismiss whistleblowers. You can obtain more information by contacting Whistleblowers Australia.