Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 05823-20 A woman v the Halifax Courier
Summary
of Complaint
1. A
woman complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
conduct of a reporter from the Halifax Courier breached Clause 14 (Confidential
sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
2. The
complainant worked as a floor manager for a retail chain. Around 28 March 2020,
she said she posted publicly on a social media site about her day at work. The
name of her employer was then evident from her social media profile. According
to the complainant, a journalist commented on the since-deleted post and asked
for her to get in touch with the publication. The complainant then sent two
emails to the publication’s news desk, on 28 and 31 March respectively. These
emails raised concerns about non-essential purchases at the store at which she
worked and a lack of measures to protect staff from the risk of Covid-19. It
was alleged that the complainant’s then employer had placed profit above the
protection of staff. The complainant stressed in her emails to the publication
that she needed to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job.
3. Between
31 March and 21 April, the publication’s reporter contacted the employer’s
press office and asked for a statement in response to the concerns which the
complainant had raised in her emails to the publication. On 21 April, the
complainant was suspended from her job, partly because of an allegation that
she “made derogatory comments regarding the company and its customers to the
media”. She was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct on 4 May 2020, the
allegation above having been substantiated by her employer.
4. The
complainant said that the publication must have provided her name or
sufficiently identified her to her employer in their email to the company. She
said that the only other person she had raised these concerns with was her MP,
and the hearing notes and letters from her employer referred to her
“comments…to the media”. Her employer also provided her with an extract from an
email, described as being from “the media”, that contained the complainant’s
name and referenced the same concerns she had raised, and contained the same
language she had used, in her emails to the publication.
5. The
publication accepted that the complainant was a confidential source within the
meaning of Clause 14. However, it denied the complainant’s claim that its
reporter had passed over her details or otherwise revealed her identify in his
email to the complainant’s employer. However, the publication was unable to
provide the email it had sent to the employer. It said that the journalist had
deleted the email after it had been sent and that, although it had contacted
the employer on receipt of the complaint, the employer had also been unable to
retrieve the original email. The publication acknowledged that its policy was
for emails to be retained for two years; it said in this case the email had
been deleted through error. The reporter said that, to the best of his recollection,
the email only referenced the fact that the source was a worker at one of the company’s
two stores in Halifax.
6. The
publication stressed that the hearing notes and letters from the complainant’s
employer never referred to the publication by name and simply mentioned the
complainant’s comments to “the media”. Finally, it raised the possibility that
the complainant’s identity in relation to the allegations could have been
revealed in some other way. For example, in light of her public social media
post, her employer could have presented her with anonymous allegations as part
of a “fishing exercise” to see if she would admit to her involvement.
7. In
response, the complainant said that there could have been no “fishing exercise”
as she was presented with an extract from an email which contained the exact
concerns she had voiced with the publication, in which she was named. There was
therefore no denying that she had been the source of the allegations at this
stage; and therefore, nothing to “fish” for.
Relevant
Code Provisions
8. Clause
14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists
have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.
Findings
of the Committee
9. The
first stage of any decision under Clause 14 is to assess whether the
complainant was a confidential source of information. The complainant had
provided the publication with information about working conditions in the store
and had clearly requested that she remain anonymous for fear of losing her job.
The complainant was a confidential source of information within the meaning of
the Clause. The publication had also accepted this was the case.
10. The
Committee then turned to the question of whether the publication had failed in
its obligation to protect a confidential source, the complainant. It carefully
considered the difficulty in determining whether the reporter had identified
the complainant in his email to her employer and noted that this email -a key
piece of evidence- was no longer available. It noted that the letters
confirming the complainant’s suspension and dismissal, and the suspension
hearing notes, referenced the complainant’s comments to “the media”. It could
not therefore be disputed that the complainant had been dismissed by her
employer for making comments “to the media”. The key question was therefore
whether the comments “to the media” referred to the concerns which the
complainant had raised with the Halifax Courier, or to another media
organisation.
11. The
complainant confirmed that the only media organisation she had contacted about
her concerns was the Halifax Courier. During the disciplinary process, the
complainant’s employer had produced part of an email it said it had received
from a media organisation, which requested the employer’s comments and
mentioned the complainant by name. This email set out the same concerns which
the complainant had raised, and contained the same language she had used, in
her email to the publication.
12. The
Committee acknowledged the publication’s denial that the email produced by the
complainant’s employer had been sent by its reporter. However, it noted that
the burden of establishing compliance with the Editors’ Code lies with the
publication. In support of her complaint, the complainant had provided the
email she had sent to the publication and the email her employer said it had
received from a media organisation. The publication accepted that an email had
been sent to the complainant’s employer, but it had been unable to provide a
copy for consideration by the Committee to demonstrate that it had not
identified the complainant; the publication explained that the email had been
deleted, despite its policy which required its retention for two years.
Considering all of the available evidence, the Committee found that the
publication had been unable to establish that it had protected the complainant
as a confidential source and there was a breach of Clause 14.
13.The
Committee took the opportunity to express its serious concern over the breach
of Clause 14 in this instance. It represented a breach of a moral obligation
and had had serious consequences for the complainant.
Conclusions
14.The
complaint was upheld.
Remedial
Action Required
15.
Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action
should be required. In circumstances where the newspaper had breached Clause
14, the publication of an adjudication was appropriate.
16. The
complaint did not relate to any published material, and so the Committee
considered carefully where the adjudication should appear. The breach of the
Code was very serious. It had partly led to the complainant being dismissed by
her employer. The Committee also had regard to the gross failure of
record-keeping on the publication’s part. It had deleted the email in which it
had passed over the complainant’s name to her employer within a couple of
months of its being sent, when its policy is to retain such emails for two
years. The adjudication should therefore appear on page 3 of the newspaper, or
further forward, and the headline of the adjudication must also be published on
the newspaper’s front page -directing readers to the adjudication on the page
it appears. The headline to the adjudication should make clear that IPSO has
upheld the complaint, give the title of the newspaper and refer to the
complaint’s subject matter. The headline must be agreed with IPSO in advance.
17. It should
also be published on the publication’s website, with a link to the full
adjudication (including the headline) appearing in the top 50% of stories on
the publication’s website for 24 hours; it should then be archived in the usual
way. The terms of the adjudication for publication are as follows:
A woman
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the conduct of
a reporter from the Halifax Courier breached Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
In March
2020, the complainant contacted the newspaper to voice concerns about working
conditions at her store at which she worked. She alleged that her employer had
placed profit above the protection of staff. The complainant stressed she
needed to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job. In May, she was
dismissed by her employer, partly for making comments “to the media”. She
accused the newspaper of revealing her identity to her employer.
The
publication accepted that it had contacted the complainant’s employer and
passed over the complainant’s concerns to them in a since-deleted email.
However, it said that it had kept her anonymous.
IPSO
found that the complainant was a confidential source of information. The key
question was whether the newspaper failed to protect the confidential source by
revealing her identity to her employer.
The
complainant’s employer had presented her with part of an email from a media
organisation at her suspension hearing, which requested the employer’s comments
and mentioned the complainant by name. This email contained the same concerns
the complainant had raised, and the same language she had used, in her original
email to the publication.
The
publication was also unable to demonstrate that the email it sent had
sufficiently protected the complainant’s confidentiality; instead, the email
had been deleted, despite the newspaper’s policy which required its retention
for two years.
For
these reasons, IPSO had concluded that the newspaper had been unable to
establish that it had protected the complainant as a confidential source and there
was a breach of Clause 14.
IPSO
also took the opportunity to express its serious concern over the breach of
Clause 14 in this instance. It represented a breach of a moral obligation and
had had serious consequences for the complainant.
Date
complaint received: 7/5/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 2/12/2020