A Director of a public institution realises that a public report by an Independent Commission undertaking a review of a range of public institutions has listed his organisation, among others, as non-compliant to certain constitutional provisions. The Director also learns that the section of the report that questions his organisation was written on the basis of information received from a Mr Jay – a member of his staff - who did not ask his superiors about the propriety or wisdom of supplying the information that he was asked to give for by the formal reviewing body.

The Director calls for an emergency meeting with senior members of staff to deliberate on the matter. After a long day’s discussion, no communication is conveyed to other members of staff. Nothing is heard for the subsequent week – when it transpires that the staff member concerned has been sent a suspension letter with immediate effect on the grounds of acting without due authorisation.

In a subsequent internal inquiry by the head of HR, it becomes clear that Mr Jay had approached several of his superior officers over the course of the previous year to raise concerns about the extent to which the organisation was compliant with these constitutional provisions.

What advise should the Head of HR give to the Director of the institution? What should the Director of the institution do? What should the head of HR do if the Director does not do what he thinks the Director should do?