Whistleblow in Geneva Private Schools at Your Own Peril?

It seems that if you whistleblow at a Geneva private school, it could end your career.

One International School of Geneva claims to have been subjected to 'anomalous' but similar mistreatment in four Geneva private schools & three unjustified dismissals after following all internal processes before reporting the International School of Geneva to the Geneva Cantonal Labour Inspectorate, OCIRT, in 2014. She wonders how much of what she is far from alone in feeling is bullying and retribution of the highest order relates to the involvement of the then Geneva cantonal representative on the Board of the International School of Geneva, PASCAL EMERY and whoever officially BLACKLISTED (legal) her on August 22nd 2013. The latter remains subject to criminal proceedings, which are being kept 'top secret'.

Who has the power to officially blacklist (legal) someone?

OCIRT inspectors, who conducted a thorough investigation at the International School of Geneva spanning 2014, 2015 and 2016 after several whistleblowers apparently reported alleged abuses, seems to have been meticulous - yet access to the outcomes of their inspections and personal data has not been so easy to access.

Who has the power to systemically block access to data?

OCIRT has been involved in cases at at least two further private schools.

In another Geneva private school, then under the jurisdiction of PASCAL EMERY's wife - after she had raised concerns about an insulting defamation and medical diagnosis by PASCAL EMERY - she found herself subject to a unilateral cut in contract which a Swiss union wrote was unlawful. She describes strikingly similar anomalous treatment to that she had experienced at the International School of Geneva and the stress this caused. After losing consciousness, possibly linked to stress, one day staff questioned why management had waited so long to call an ambulance. No clarification was ever provided.

The whistleblower resigned because her daughter worked at the school. She wrote to the department of PASCAL EMERY's wife some time later respectfully requesting that no family members working in Geneva private schools be subjected to any retribution; the same day a cut in her daughter's contract was rectified. The whistleblower's daughter, also a staff delegate, has recently been dismissed, in spite of apparently being described by the owner, at the same time, as a 'perfect teacher'. The communications from the owner to the whistleblower's daughter whilst she was on medical absence are noteworthy and perhaps indicative of a confidence that his actions will not be scrutinised.

A pensions expert recently unexpectedly encouraged the whistleblower to seek legal advice over apparent pensions irregularities linked to at least two of the Geneva private schools she worked at, including the latter. The owner says he can't do anything about any potential irregularities, which do seem to be linked to the school's pension fund rather than the school.

Can influence be exerted on Geneva private schools & - if so - who has this power & who might abuse it?

In another Geneva Private school, coincidentally not long after the whistleblower made data requests about the self-admitted (in 2018) conflicting interests of the UK UN Foreign Office legal counsel, an attempt was made to withdraw her indeterminate contract. Then, she feels there were strikingly similar incidents of anomalous treatment, which included the school director (who had been respectful up until that point) apparently shouting at her and telling others that there were things he knew about the whistleblower which they didn't. False profiling? She was dismissed one day before the start of the new academic year in 2019/2020. It turns out that the UK UN Foreign Office legal counsel was also the legal counsel and a Board member at this Geneva private school.

After a criminal lawyer contacted him, he seemed very keen to settle the case. After untold alleged anomalies, that lawyer eventually dropped the case and more alleged anomalies unfolded. Finally, the whistleblower refused to sign a convention for a settlement; the convention itself seemed to provide useful and incriminating evidence for the future processes which its authors seemed keen to avoid.

Interestingly, the dismissal letter at this school was signed by Sean Power and Monique Roine, who were not only Board member at the school but senior members of AGEP, the Geneva Private Schools Association. It wasn't signed by the school director, whose evaluations of the whistleblower had been excellent. The whistleblower has repeatedly requested data relating to this case, including from OCIRT - to no avail.

Who would & could falsely profile a whistleblower. Who might oversee any harassment campaigns & why might those involved feel 'immune' from accountability?

In yet another Geneva private school, the strikingly similar anomalous incidents started sooner (and are worthy of a separate chapter) and culminated in a defamation by another management member, possibly at least at the behest of the owner. The whistleblower was dismissed and is still waiting for her belongings, her final salary and closure. Data has yet to be provided by OCIRT.

In all four private schools there were apparently well-evidenced anomalies with medical insurance, including data procurations and one which even the insurance Ombudsman questioned and the whistleblower made clear she would not sign. In spite of this the insurer contacted the whistleblower's doctor without a procuration to obtain data. This was not the first time this had happened.

Who might have the power to influence medical insurers for four Geneva private schools?

The whistleblower feels that she can't work safely in Geneva private schools and that OCIRT is unable (rather than unwilling) to do anything about that.

As is the case with every aspect of this tentacular case, the whistleblower has not been able to access justice over treatment and dismissals at Geneva private schools. There has been no closure, which includes farewells to the outstanding staff and teams she has worked with, and no transparency over why she has left.

She is far from alone in feeling that this, as well as numerous other aspects of this tentacular case, is nothing short of white-collar thuggery and abuse of power of the highest order.

No wonder proceedings have taken place and records exist in several jurisdictions, including apparently at the unit of the Irish Police responsible for investigating serious organised crime.