Is the recent whistleblowing Act merely an employment rights measure or is it promoting good practices at work?Last month, Tom Conlon, a form er head of the legal department and compliance officer at ABN Amro Bank, who was suing for unfair dismissal, claiming he was fired for blowing the whistle on what he believed to be insider trading at the Dutch bank, settled out of court for a six-figure sum.

He had alleged that an investigation he was asked to carry out was shelved after he found what he believed to be widespread evidence of wrongdoing.Mr Conlon's lawyers and ABN Amro reached a settlement just before the start of an estimated 25-day hearing at Stratford Employment Tribunals.

It is believed that Mr Conlon, who had been seeking as much as £1 million from the bank, received between £200,000 and £300,000 as a lump sum, plus unspecified benefits such as a pension.

Mr Conlon, who was reinstated as a senior vice-president of the bank pending the outcome of his claim, will now leave at the end of this month.Mr Conlon was the latest in a series of high-profile cases brought under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which came into force on 2 July 1999 to protect whistleblowers.

It has been described by campaigners in the US as 'the most far-reaching whistleblower protection in the world'.Indeed, the Act, which expands the Employment Rights Act 1996, provides remedies to employees who are dismissed or victimised for making a disclosure 'which they reasonably believe tends to show' criminal offences, breaches of legal obligation, miscarriages of justice, health and safety dangers, and environmental risk.There is provision in the legislation for unlimited compensation for dismissal.

And if the internal mechanisms do not allow employees to express their concerns to their managers, they can go to the press, the police or a Member of Parliament and still have protection.A number of the cases brought under the Act since July 1999 have involved the public sector, particularly care and residential homes, such as the case of Bladen v ALM Medical Services.

In this case, a male nurse was awarded £13,000 compensation and aggravated damages of £10,000 by Manchester Employment Tribunal.More surprising has been the use of the Act in the private sector.A year after it came into force, accountant Toni Fernandes was sacked for gross misconduct after informing directors of his belief that £371,000 had been wrongly claimed by a senior employee in cash advances and expenses without receipts.

He was awarded £293,441 compensation by an employment tribunal.The award against his former employer, Netcom Consultants, is the largest made under the Act so far.

Before fixing the compensation at £293,441, mostly for loss of earnings, the tribunal found that the reasons given for his dismissal were a 'smokescreen' to avoid disclosing malpractice.Guy Dehn, director of the charity Public Concern at Work, describes that award as a 'wake-up call' to every employer.

'If they do not have an effective whistleblowing policy, they will pay dearly.'He adds that employers who 'suppress warnings and shoot the messenger are now taking enormous risks.

It is only with clear signals like this that people will gain confidence to speak up and so break the cycle of silence, inertia and inaction behind many scandals.'But the major disadvantage for those like Mr Fernandes and Mr Conlon is finding employment again.

No employer will want to take on someone who is perceived to be a troublemaker.

But employment lawyers say that would be the case whether the claim was one of sexual or racial discrimination.Simon Watson, a partner in the employment department at City firm Simmons & Simmons says: 'Lo oked at cynically, because there is no cap on the compensation, as in sex and race claims, then a claim under the Act can be seen as more threatening to an employer.

But there has not been a huge flurry of cases.

In many cases, a claim under the Act is being used in conjunction with other claims.'He adds that there are also practical problems whether you are acting for the employer or the employee.For the employer, it should be noted that the disclosure which triggers the protection does not have to be justified objectively as long as the employee believes it -- that can be difficult for the employer to counter.And from the employee's perspective, he or she has to prove that there is cause and effect -- that the detriment suffered resulted from him making that protected disclosure.Mr Watson explains: 'Where the employment relationship has broken down, then that situation can give rise to a claim on the ground that there is a blatant case of discrimination.

A case where protected disclosure is the only claim is relatively rare, particularly in the private sector, but it is too early to say how cases will develop.'It is essentially a reputational issue -- but other grounds for discrimination have been seen as more serious, such as race and sex, so whistleblowing is not as much on the employers' radar.'Barrister John Bowers, who co-wrote the textbook Whistleblowing: The New Law, agrees that it is too early to say what the impact of the Act has been.

He says: 'There have been a lot of settlements, and it does appear that employers are more likely to settle instead of having sensitive information come out at a tribunal.'What has been notable is that before the Act came into force, it was thought that it would apply mainly to the public sector.

But, as the Conlon case and also the case of former Alliance & Leicester head, Peter White, show, claims under the Act are increasingly being made in cases involving the highly paid in the City.

'The purpose of the Act is to bring about a culture where whistleblowing is unnecessary in the first place.

In the public sector, the Act has led to all health authorities being advised to appoint a senior manager to protect whistleblowers who report on malpractice in the NHS.

And all the BBC's 23,600 employees have been issued with a card with a freephone number and information on the corporation's whistleblowing procedure.At the micro level, the Act is seen as dealing with employment rights, but the macro view is slightly different.

And according to Mr Dehn the Act seems to be working much as Parliament intended.He says: 'Essentially, whistleblowing is a governance tool.

The problem is that it is not being promoted properly by the government.

There is still a lot of work to be done, despite the fact that this has the support of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.'And he stresses that the Act was never intended to be an employment rights measure.

It was intended as one of the ways to shift the balance between the interests of the public and employers.Employees should not have to blow the whistle outside the company because their concerns should be dealt with; the employers recognise that they will suffer reprisals in monetary and reputational terms if the whistleblower is victimised.Mr Dehn concludes: 'In the real world, the Act is a marker on the way to more accountable organisations and civic responsibilities, a signal that certain conduct is just not acceptable -- that is all in the wider public interest.

Under the Act, employees who whistleblow w ill find that there is a safe alternative to silence.'