My misconceptions about doing the right thing

By Kenny McPhail , Energy Working Group Chair, at WhistleblowersUK

In 2010, I ‘blew the whistle’ on organisational failings, a manager’s misconduct and my concerns over deficient safety management systems in the company I worked for. During a ten-year period, 26 fatalities and serious injuries were recorded at operational locations, many with the same causal factors I’d been exposing.

In my opinion, systemic weaknesses and leadership failures caused a prolonged and convoluted mess that was wholly inadequate and unacceptable. A lack of accountability allowed those responsible to escape consequences, enabling them to remain in senior roles, some held in high regard. These parallels have been seen to occur in other organisations, institutions and establishments, unfortunately in many events where warning signs are ignored, there are tragic consequences, yet rarely, if at all, do you see accountability.

Unfortunately, until this happens, tragedies and misfortunes will continue to happen. In my case I had the choice, say nothing and see others at risk, or speak up and put myself at risk. My moral compass dictated there was only one option, but the consequences of my decision to act ethically worked against me. Something was very wrong when the idealism of an organisation and the reality of my situation was so different.

My first misconception – assuming that my company Speak Up (Duty to Report) Policy, was a fair and transparent process.

It was endorsed by the chief executive, mandating employees to report wrongdoing that could risk the company’s reputation, the outcome proved otherwise. When I realised others were at risk and decided to speak up, I became vulnerable. This wasn’t just an unfair process, it was deceptive, revealing elements of ineffective leadership and Machiavellian conduct within the organisation.

The unfairness extended beyond me to other employees in a culture obsessed with corporate grandeur and an aura of invincibility, deluding those who aspired to move up the corporate ladder. This culture spawned narcissistic individuals, many of whom exhibited charmless traits and paranoia, isolating those they saw as threats. These individuals were shielded by a lack of accountability and a belief that anything other than good news was unwelcome.

Ultimately, my employment was terminated for “some other substantial reason.” It was later intimated that this was because I was viewed as “a risk to the business.”

My second misconception - assuming that by reporting my concerns to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) they would be investigated.

I was disappointed to encounter a hands-off approach and a reluctance to engage with me. It wasn’t until I sought the support of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that I received an invitation from the regulator to present my case. The outcome was fallacious, my concerns were disregard and an opportunity to learn lessons was spurned. Was this due to the ineptitude of the regulator, or was their contempt for my interpretation of events attributable to collusion with my company?

This event contradicted the ethos of the regulator, in fact, they actually emboldened the company. Following the Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster, Lord Cullen made recommendations with a view to “the preservation of life and avoidance of similar accidents in the future”. Something the HSE appeared to have overlooked.

My third misconception - assuming that hiring legal counsel would be in my best interest was a big mistake.

Despite fees in excess of £38,000, my lawyer was unable (or unwilling) to make a case for me. They advised if my case went to a hearing, it would cost a further £10,000, plus expenses and that the respondent would have a strong legal team who would “dispute vigorously”. They estimated I had a 40% - 45% chance of success at a hearing, to me this was a 55% -60% chance of failure, I could not risk a hearing with these odds.

My lawyer strongly advised me to accept one of the numerous Compromise Agreements offered by the respondent rather than fight my case. In my opinion there had to have been collusion between my lawyer, the respondents’ lawyers and their external “magic circle” legal panel. I would have been confident explaining my rationale to a judge from a purely technical standpoint. However, my case had now become entangled with legal complexities, and I felt coerced into something alien to my profession. Consequently, I refused to sign a Compromise Agreement and aborted the tribunal process.

My fourth misconception – assuming that by engaging my constituent MP he could highlight corporate malpractice and negligence and raise these issues at government level.

He committed to a meeting with the chair of the HSE and wrote to my company regarding my concerns. My company COO responded deceptively to my MP, the HSE chief executive’s response was similarly misleading, in fact it was patronising.

The deception was proven when a subsequent HSE inspection uncovered the same issues I had previously exposed.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion it has taken place.” George Bernard Shaw.

My fifth misconception – assuming that agencies proclaiming to provide help and guidance could offer constructive advice.

After spending many months corresponding with one charity, I received a condescending response from someone identifying as the chief executive’s assistant: “What else do you expect your company to do?” This made me suspect that they had been colluding with the company in question and believed the party line that it had done everything possible to resolve the issue, which was untrue.

Many people express opinions and write articles about whistleblowers and their intentions without truly understanding their experiences. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, those who haven't been whistleblowers themselves should refrain from making assumptions and avoid shaping policy decisions on the matter.

Unfortunately, my misplaced faith and trust in others led me to make assumptions, which was a significant misconception on my part. As noted by Sir Charles Haddon-Cave during his investigation into the Nimrod disaster, quoting a SAS term (in slightly more colourful language) “assumptions are the mother of all cock-ups”.

With over 40 years of experience in the industry, ranging from a technical apprentice to supervisory and management roles, I was well-placed to recognise, challenge, and expose at-risk situations.

My experience highlights how institutions can treat people unfairly and, at times, as brutally as possible. The level of injustice against those who challenge misconduct is inconceivable. Aligning with one’s values and doing what is morally right can often feel like shooting yourself in the foot.

How did this happen?

• A lack of understanding of company policy or ignoring it in a toxic culture, the need to protect the corporate reputation at all costs resulting in an institutional betrayal of trust.
• Incompetence and systematic failings across organisations.
• Conflict of interest with a cosy relationship between organisations and their regulators.
• The rule-of-law and the inability (or otherwise) of my lawyer to make a case.
• Inadequate legislation to support whistleblowers.

This is a chapter in a story that never should have needed telling because when I spoke up, it wasn’t just the risks I exposed, it was the reactions that revealed everything. What happens when you speak up in a system built to suppress? I spoke up because silence wasn’t an option when people were at risk of harm.

What followed wasn’t a search for truth, but a coordinated effort to protect egos. Narcissistic managers closed ranks while HR, instead of acting independently, colluded in shielding those responsible. Their lawyers weren’t there to uphold standards, they were there to silence dissent. They didn’t challenge the risks I raised, they challenged me. In a system built on image and self-preservation, the truth becomes a threat. It wasn’t the truth that hurt them, it was the fact I wouldn’t let it go away.

The solution

Ensuring accountability for wrongdoers sends a clear message to those contemplating wilful misconduct. This will be achieved by enacting the Protection for Whistleblowing Bill and establishing an Office of the Whistleblower to support and protect those who come forward.

If you'd like to get involved with our Energy Working Group, or are an energy company who would like to become a sponsor for Whistleblowing Awareness Week, which takes place in Westminster from 7-11 July 2025, we'd love to hear from you.

Please email the team at comms@wbuk.org for more information.