Integrity and misconduct in research : report of the Commission on Research Integrity to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

  • United States. Commission on Research Integrity.
Date:
1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Integrity and misconduct in research : report of the Commission on Research Integrity to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    75/84 (page 63)
    7. The conclusions of the investigation shall be documented in a written report and made available to the parties. The report should include findings of fact, a list of witnesses interviewed, an analysis of the evidence, and a detailed description of the investigative process. 8. The deciding official shall make a final institutional determination as to whether retaliation occurred. This decision shall be based on the report, the record of the investigation, and a preponderance of evidence standard. 9. If there is a determination that retaliation has occurred, the deciding official shall determine what remedies are appropriate to satisfy the institution’s regulatory obligation to protect whistleblowers. The deciding official shall, in consultation with the whistleblower, take measures to protect and/or restore the whistleblower’s position and reputation, including making any public or private statements, as appropriate. In addition the deciding official may impose any protections against further retaliation by establishing a system to monitor or discipline the retaliator. 10. The institution shall promptly notify ORI of its conclusions and remedies, if any, and forward the underlying investigation report to ORI. 11. The ORI will review the institutional report to determine whether the institution has substantially followed the process described herein. If the institution has substantially conformed to the process, ORI will not review the merits of the institutional determination under Paragraph 8. 12. Institutional compliance with Section V does not bar the whistleblower from challenging the process or the objectivity, thoroughness, competence, or results of the process, under State law, institutional procedure, policy or agreement, or as otherwise provided by law. Option B: Arbitration 1. If the institution elects Option B, the institution shall offer the whistleblower the opportunity to submit the retaliation dispute to binding arbitration. The parties shall sign a written agreement that the retaliation dispute will be decided by final and binding arbitration, identifying by whom the arbitration will be conducted. 2. The arbitration agreement shall specify that the institution and the whistleblower abrogate all other rights under Federal, State and local law, and other institutional policies or employment agreements pertinent to the resolution of the whistleblower retaliation complaint, other than enforcement of the arbitration award. However, the parties may enter into any legally enforceable settlement agreement before a final arbitration award is made. A sample arbitration agreement is attached. 3. Any retaliation complaint submitted to arbitration shall be arbitrated according to the rules and procedures of the presiding arbitrator and designated arbitration association. 4. An arbitration under these Guidelines shall be conducted by an arbitrator who has no personal or professional relationship or conflict of interest with the whistleblower, the