University staff SHOULD be free to criticise senior management and expose wrongdoing without fear of dismissal or disciplinary action, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. In a momentous verdict which confirms the right to freedom of expression at work, the Strasbourg court found that a professor at a Latvian university had been unfairly sacked after he spoke out against nepotism, plagiarism, corruption and mismanagement in his department. Andris Rubins was head of the department of dermatological and venereal diseases at Riga Stradins University when he went public with his allegations in March 2010. This action followed a series of emails he sent to the university™s rector which concluded with Prof. Rubins stating his intention to expose various malpractices unless the institution reversed its decision to merge his department with another, which would have abolished his post. Six weeks later, he was informed that his contract had been terminated because of a breach of œgood morals. This decision was upheld in 2012 by a Latvian court which found he had shown disloyalty towards his employer and had acted without integrity in issuing œthreats to the rector. The court stated that œa calm and positive atmosphere and a respectful attitude among colleagues best contribute to achieving constructive dialogue, and said Prof. Rubins should have kept his concerns within the university. However, a majority of judges at the European court ruled that his dismissal amounted to unjustified interference in Prof. Rubins™ right to freedom of expression and violated Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantees this right. Employees do owe their employers a duty of loyalty and discretion, but in this case the truthfulness of Prof. Rubins™ claims had not been challenged and they were in the public interest, the judges said. The ruling, published on January 13, may provide added protection to whistleblowers in the UK, as some matters are not covered in the list of qualifying disclosures under current employment law, according to Makbool Javaid, partner and employment law specialist at Simons Muirhead and Burton. The court ordered the respondent, the Latvian government, to pay Prof. Rubins ‚10,280 (Rs.6.86 lakh) in compensation and legal costs, although it did not uphold his claim for damages of almost ‚159,000. But two of the seven Strasbourg judges dissented, saying he had been sacked for attempted blackmail of the rector, rather than for going public with his accusations. (Excerpted and adapted from )
