Lessons from Super Retail Group (Part 1): The Potential Consequences of a Whistleblower Report

Australia’s shopping giant, Super Retail Group, has drawn significant media attention in an unfolding and complex legal battle resulting from a whistleblowing case. The claims have led to an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and carry implications for corporate governance and the effective mechanisms in place for the protection of whistleblowers in Australia.

‍

The whistleblower case involving Australia’s Super Retail Group (SRG) has served to highlight the many complexities and potential consequences of whistleblowing within a corporate environment. At the heart of the dispute are the allegations made by two former SRG senior executives.

Whistleblower Claims

The applicants (or whistleblowers) were named as Rebecca Farrell, employed as the Chief Legal Officer and as a company secretary and Amelia Berczelly, SRG’s General Manager, Group Secretariat and Corporate Legal. Both individuals cited unreasonable workloads, insufficient resources and suppression of critical information for certain employees.

These claims emerged alongside broader allegations of workplace bullying, harassment and a disregard for employee well-being, which they attempted to raise internally, claiming it had created a toxic work environment.

The ongoing lawsuit also involves reports of an inappropriate and clandestine relationship between CEO, Anthony Heraghty and the former Chief Human Resources Officer, Jane Kelly. The whistleblowers contended this relationship, claiming it compromised company governance.

With the whistleblowers claiming attempts to raise their concerns internally were met with resistance, Farrell and Berczelly sought legal recourse and, represented by Harmers Workplace Lawyers, a lawsuit was filed against the company.

Company Response

SRG conducted an internal investigation which resulted in the organisation claiming to find no evidence of the allegations. However, the company subsequently issued an announcement about expected litigation, estimating it between $30 million to $50 million. Naturally, this began to spark intense media scrutiny and controversy.

Confidentiality and Media Coverage

With public statements by the company and media coverage bringing it into the public domain, the case is facing a series of legal battles relating to disputes surrounding the use of evidence, confidentiality and suppression orders. These could affect legal proceedings and impact the reputations of both the company and the whistleblowers.

What lessons can we learn from SRG - and how can organisations avoid the same happening to them?

• Whistleblower Protection
  Sensitive information must be managed responsibly. Confidentiality and safety are paramount to minimising reputational damage and ensuring the safeguarding of all parties involved in a whistleblowing case.
  
• Corporate Governance
  Effective corporate governance means any commercial or legal response should focus on the merits of the allegations. In other words, rather than questioning the whistleblower’s motivations, organisations should make sure that decisions are rooted in evidence rather than speculation.
  
• Impartiality And Support
  Organisations and whistleblowers will approach matters from different perspectives and the whistleblowing process should therefore focus on objectivity as much as possible. Clear communication with the various parties, in a supportive environment, is critical to building trust and providing a fair outcome.

• Public Scrutiny and Media Impact
  The media plays an important role in highlighting whistleblower disclosures. When a case enters the public domain early on in proceedings, the parties most impacted (the organisation, leadership or whistleblower/s) often risk losing control – and their reputation, particularly when an organisation, its advisors or the legal regulator have failed to address systemic wrongdoing.

‍

The SRG case highlights the essential role of whistleblowers in exposing issues that may otherwise remain hidden - fraud, corruption and other unethical or illegal practices. While some whistleblowers may be considered to be acting in the public interest, other face retaliation, resulting in personal distress and damage to their professional reputation. It is therefore essential to have robust legal frameworks and policies in place to protect them from reprisal and ensure their concerns are investigated in a fair and just manner.

‍

The team at Veremark Whistleblower Technology Solutions have assisted large numbers of organisations in designing and implementing whistleblower programs. We provide Boards and Senior Management with expert advice around whistleblower protection, independent reporting mechanisms and engaging with regulators and other external stakeholders when matters of serious misconduct have been reported via a whistleblower program.

‍