Purpose

Courts and tribunals seem to have little knowledge about what factors make re-employment practicable. This paper aims to demonstrate that the re-employment/redeployment of whistleblowers may well be “successful” in a wide range of circumstances.

Design/methodology/approach

Interviewees were identified via a direct call to organisations involved in advising or representing whistleblowers. Covid restrictions at the time (March–April 2021) prevented case study interviews being conducted in person, so Zoom interviews were carried out.

Findings

The “success” of re-employment/ redeployment was associated with the following factors: the individual returned to the same job with a different boss or at a different location; the concern raised was dealt with; there had been judicial involvement by way of mediation and/or adjudication; that lawyers were used as representatives; that most returnees were not financially worse off; that the individual had the support of family, friends and colleagues and were willing to get the press or other media involved.

Research limitations/implications

As the findings are based on 11 interviews arising from snowball sampling, it goes without saying that they cannot be considered representative, and more extensive research is needed to check their validity. It should also be noted that the positive views expressed about re-employment/redeployment may reflect the fact that those who had more negative experiences of returning to work were less likely to volunteer to be interviewed. The author believes that this research demonstrates that a phenomenological approach can provide important insights into the highly complex nature of both retaliation for whistleblowing and any re-employment/ redeployment that ensures.

Practical implications

That factors could be identified, which might be associated with “successful” re-employment/ redeployment, has implications for both legal and human resource practitioners and perhaps for a wider society that believes those who suffer a wrong should have a say in the remedy that they are afforded.

Originality/value

To the author’s knowledge, almost no research has been carried out into the experiences of whistleblowers who have been reemployed/redeployed following retaliation for raising concerns.

中文翻译：

---

报复举报：再就业/再就业经历的一些案例研究

目的

法院和法庭似乎对使再就业可行的因素知之甚少。本文旨在证明举报人的重新就业/重新部署很可能在广泛的情况下“成功”。

设计/方法/方法

受访者是通过直接致电参与建议或代表举报人的组织来确定的。当时（2021 年 3 月至 2021 年 4 月）的 Covid 限制阻止了亲自进行案例研究采访，因此进行了 Zoom 采访。

发现

重新就业/重新部署的“成功”与以下因素有关： 个人回到不同老板或不同地点的同一工作；提出的问题得到处理；通过调解和/或裁决的方式参与司法；律师被用作代表；大多数返回者的经济状况并没有变差；个人得到家人、朋友和同事的支持，并愿意让媒体或其他媒体参与进来。

研究限制/影响

由于调查结果基于滚雪球抽样的 11 次访谈，因此不言而喻，它们不能被视为具有代表性，需要更广泛的研究来检查它们的有效性。还应该注意的是，对再就业/再就业表达的积极看法可能反映了那些有更多负面重返工作经历的人不太可能自愿接受采访的事实。作者认为，这项研究表明，现象学方法可以提供重要的见解，以了解对举报的报复和任何确保的再就业/重新部署的高度复杂性。

实际影响

可以确定可能与“成功”重新就业/重新部署相关的因素，这对法律和人力资源从业人员以及更广泛的社会都有影响，因为他们认为遭受错误的人应该在补救措施中拥有发言权他们负担得起。

原创性/价值

据作者所知，几乎没有对举报人因提出担忧而遭到报复而被重新雇用/重新部署的经历进行过研究。