CIFAS FRAUDSCAPE
The CIFAS Staff Fraud Database is a data-sharing scheme that enables responsible employers to file proven cases of staff fraud in order to prevent the perpetrator moving unchallenged to a new employer to commit further fraud.
An employer accesses the database in order to:
file data about identified staff fraud cases
check staff fraud records filed by other CIFAS Members.
This can be done either to pre-screen applicants or to screen current employees. Almost 120 employers already share information in this way. As a member of the Staff Fraud Database, Powerchex can access the database on behalf of CIFAS members.Click on the link below for an analysis of the cases of staff fraud filed to the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database by those organisations.
http://www.cifas.org.uk/download/fraudscape.pdf
Monday 23 March 2009
Wednesday 18 March 2009
Should hiring decisions be made by looking at social networking sites?
Views vary widely on the subject of trawling through social networking sites as part of the pre-employment screening process. Here at Powerchex our view has always been that there are too many legal and ethical pitfalls to this process and for that reason we do not incorporate these searches to our screening process. As an employer you need to make up your mind of course. Here are two views on the subject that may help you decide:
______________________________________________________
Louisa Peacock reports for Personnel today:
A quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates, research has revealed.
The study by talent management consultancy DDI found that 25% of 1,910 job interviewers across the globe, and 12% of employers in the UK, were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether to interview them.
More than half (52%) of those that did look up prospective employee profiles on such sites admitted they used the information to make hiring decisions.
The news comes just days after Personnel Today reported that employers should encourage their staff to use Facebook and Twitter to help network with their peers.
However, less than a third of 3,523 jobseekers (32%) surveyed by DDI worldwide, and just a quarter (25%) of applicants in the UK, believed that what they put on social networking sites might affect their chances of getting a job.
Steve Newhall, vice-president for Europe at DDI, said: "Interviewers should realise that much of what is put [on Facebook] is for fun, and is unlikely to reflect a candidate's on-the-job demeanour or performance. It's difficult to gauge when looking at Facebook-type data if the information is true or has any relevance for the job role in question. A well-planned and conducted selection process will uncover relevant information about candidates' ability to do the job."
The 2009 Global Interviewing Practices and Perceptions survey found that German employers were almost twice as likely as any other country to conduct online searches, with 46% reporting they use this technique to make hiring decisions.
The practice of checking social networking sites becomes more prevalent the younger the interviewer. Globally, only 19% of those over 50 checked these sites, compared to 46% of those under 25.
The global survey interviewed 248 employers and 704 jobseekers in the UK.
_____________________
Jo Wort, professional support lawyer, and Gagandeep Prasad, solicitor Charles Russell present the legal view on the subject:
There are several issues raised by this approach to recruitment. The first is one of potential discrimination arising out of the age profile of internet users. In adopting a policy of online application only, it is likely that many older candidates will be excluded before the recruitment process has even begun. If faced with an age discrimination claim, the company would have to seek to justify this approach.
Trawling through these sites on receipt of an application is pre-employment vetting. Potentially, this raises both discrimination and data protection issues. For example, there may be information obtained from these sites that relate to an individual's sexual orientation, or religious belief that impact, or are perceived to impact, on the eventual decision whether or not to recruit. Information that impacts on recruitment decisions in this way will be grounds for a discrimination claim.
A further issue with trawling these sites is the question of verification. What weight do you place on the information found? Was it placed by the individual themselves, or a disgruntled former friend or colleague? The Employment Practices Data Protection Code makes clear that an employer should "not place reliance on information collected from possibly unreliable sources. Allow the applicant to make representations regarding information that will affect the decision to finally appoint". The applicant should therefore be given the opportunity to deal with information that the company has found on a social networking site that negatively impacts on any decision whether or not to recruit.
Such searches are effectively pre-employment vetting and the Employment Practices Data Protection Code states that employers should "only use vetting thing as a means of obtaining specific information, not as a means of general intelligence gathering". This should only be undertaken where there are significant risks to clients/customer, and ideally only late in the recruitment stage, so that not all applicants are vetted routinely.
Searching social networking sites as a recruitment tool raises many potential issues and, as a matter of best practice, should not be generally adopted.
______________________________________________________
Louisa Peacock reports for Personnel today:
A quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates, research has revealed.
The study by talent management consultancy DDI found that 25% of 1,910 job interviewers across the globe, and 12% of employers in the UK, were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether to interview them.
More than half (52%) of those that did look up prospective employee profiles on such sites admitted they used the information to make hiring decisions.
The news comes just days after Personnel Today reported that employers should encourage their staff to use Facebook and Twitter to help network with their peers.
However, less than a third of 3,523 jobseekers (32%) surveyed by DDI worldwide, and just a quarter (25%) of applicants in the UK, believed that what they put on social networking sites might affect their chances of getting a job.
Steve Newhall, vice-president for Europe at DDI, said: "Interviewers should realise that much of what is put [on Facebook] is for fun, and is unlikely to reflect a candidate's on-the-job demeanour or performance. It's difficult to gauge when looking at Facebook-type data if the information is true or has any relevance for the job role in question. A well-planned and conducted selection process will uncover relevant information about candidates' ability to do the job."
The 2009 Global Interviewing Practices and Perceptions survey found that German employers were almost twice as likely as any other country to conduct online searches, with 46% reporting they use this technique to make hiring decisions.
The practice of checking social networking sites becomes more prevalent the younger the interviewer. Globally, only 19% of those over 50 checked these sites, compared to 46% of those under 25.
The global survey interviewed 248 employers and 704 jobseekers in the UK.
_____________________
Jo Wort, professional support lawyer, and Gagandeep Prasad, solicitor Charles Russell present the legal view on the subject:
There are several issues raised by this approach to recruitment. The first is one of potential discrimination arising out of the age profile of internet users. In adopting a policy of online application only, it is likely that many older candidates will be excluded before the recruitment process has even begun. If faced with an age discrimination claim, the company would have to seek to justify this approach.
Trawling through these sites on receipt of an application is pre-employment vetting. Potentially, this raises both discrimination and data protection issues. For example, there may be information obtained from these sites that relate to an individual's sexual orientation, or religious belief that impact, or are perceived to impact, on the eventual decision whether or not to recruit. Information that impacts on recruitment decisions in this way will be grounds for a discrimination claim.
A further issue with trawling these sites is the question of verification. What weight do you place on the information found? Was it placed by the individual themselves, or a disgruntled former friend or colleague? The Employment Practices Data Protection Code makes clear that an employer should "not place reliance on information collected from possibly unreliable sources. Allow the applicant to make representations regarding information that will affect the decision to finally appoint". The applicant should therefore be given the opportunity to deal with information that the company has found on a social networking site that negatively impacts on any decision whether or not to recruit.
Such searches are effectively pre-employment vetting and the Employment Practices Data Protection Code states that employers should "only use vetting thing as a means of obtaining specific information, not as a means of general intelligence gathering". This should only be undertaken where there are significant risks to clients/customer, and ideally only late in the recruitment stage, so that not all applicants are vetted routinely.
Searching social networking sites as a recruitment tool raises many potential issues and, as a matter of best practice, should not be generally adopted.
Thursday 12 March 2009
Verifying Chinese Degrees and Qualifications
Anyone that has tried to verify a Chinese Degree will tell you that it is a time consuming and sometimes unreliable process. The easier way to do it is through the China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center.
Their website is: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwweben/xw_aboutus.jsp and any company or individual can apply on line for a verification. These verifications need to be applied for in Chinese at: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/rzgl/apply/login.jsp and the cost varies between £25 and £35. Payment needs to be made by bank transfer and the verification process takes 20 days or less. If you find this too complicated and time consuming, we can do it on your behalf for a small admin fee.
The Introduction of CDGDC China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC) is an administrative department directly under the Ministry of Education, operating under the joint leadership of The Ministry of Education and The Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council (ADCSC). CDGDC is a non-profit agency with the independent qualification of legal entity.
Their website is: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwweben/xw_aboutus.jsp and any company or individual can apply on line for a verification. These verifications need to be applied for in Chinese at: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/rzgl/apply/login.jsp and the cost varies between £25 and £35. Payment needs to be made by bank transfer and the verification process takes 20 days or less. If you find this too complicated and time consuming, we can do it on your behalf for a small admin fee.
Thousands of policemen have criminal records
According to a recent investigation by the Guardian newspaper, records were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. These records indicate that more than 1,000 service officers have been convicted of assault, burglary and dishonesty. This is an interesting finding that raises questions as to whether people of questionable character should be in law enforcement.
Jo Adetunji reports for the Guardian:
_________________________________________________________________
More than 1,000 serving police have criminal convictions ranging from assault to burglary, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The data, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, showed 1,063 officers with criminal records, including 59 for assault, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty. Other offences include battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice and forgery.
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said the figures showed that some officers who committed violent offences while serving or were proved dishonest were being allowed to keep their jobs.
He said police chiefs needed to "get tough on bad apples" in their teams.
"It is staggering that so many of the people entrusted to protect us from crime have criminal convictions themselves. It is even more worrying that so many police officers convicted of serious crimes involving dishonesty or violence have been allowed to keep their jobs. The public entrust the police with the use of legal force precisely because they are self-disciplined and restrained, which is why anyone convicted of a violent offence should be dismissed. I cannot see how a police officer convicted of dishonesty can perform their duty effectively.
"The trust that is absolutely vital in policing is seriously undermined when police officers are being convicted of crimes of dishonesty. Allowing police officers convicted of offences of violence or dishonesty to continue serving merely brings the vast majority of law-abiding and diligent officers into disrepute."
Although there were vetting procedures for dealing with new applicants, there was no Home Office guidance for dealing with officers committing offences while serving, Huhne said.
"There is a disturbing lack of consistency in how police forces deal with officers who are convicted of crimes. The Home Office recognises this decisive problem for applicants but not for serving officers."
According to the data, obtained from 41 of 52 forces, a further 210 officers have resigned or been dismissed from their jobs since 2004 because of their convictions. Only 37 have been dismissed for dishonesty.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said officers convicted of crimes would not automatically lose their jobs.
Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and head of workforce development for Acpo, said: "The police service expects good conduct and probity from its officers and staff at all times. Where wrongdoing is alleged, police officers are investigated and action taken as appropriate to each case.
"It should be remembered that there are just over 140,000 police officers in the country. It is very rare that a person with a criminal conviction will be recruited into the police service.
"Where an officer has committed misconduct, which can include a criminal offence, a range of disciplinary actions can be taken. Each case is judged on its merit. The force concerned will then take action depending on a range of factors including the severity of the offence and its impact on an officer's ability to carry out their duties."
According to the figures, the forces with the highest number of police with convictions are the Metropolitan police with 274, West Midlands with 121 and Strathclyde, 107. Merseyside has 82, while Manchester and Kent have 44. Grampian has 34 and South Wales 31.
The forces with the highest percentage of officers with criminal convictions are Merseyside and West Midlands, followed by the Met and South Wales police.
Jo Adetunji reports for the Guardian:
_________________________________________________________________
More than 1,000 serving police have criminal convictions ranging from assault to burglary, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The data, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, showed 1,063 officers with criminal records, including 59 for assault, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty. Other offences include battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice and forgery.
Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said the figures showed that some officers who committed violent offences while serving or were proved dishonest were being allowed to keep their jobs.
He said police chiefs needed to "get tough on bad apples" in their teams.
"It is staggering that so many of the people entrusted to protect us from crime have criminal convictions themselves. It is even more worrying that so many police officers convicted of serious crimes involving dishonesty or violence have been allowed to keep their jobs. The public entrust the police with the use of legal force precisely because they are self-disciplined and restrained, which is why anyone convicted of a violent offence should be dismissed. I cannot see how a police officer convicted of dishonesty can perform their duty effectively.
"The trust that is absolutely vital in policing is seriously undermined when police officers are being convicted of crimes of dishonesty. Allowing police officers convicted of offences of violence or dishonesty to continue serving merely brings the vast majority of law-abiding and diligent officers into disrepute."
Although there were vetting procedures for dealing with new applicants, there was no Home Office guidance for dealing with officers committing offences while serving, Huhne said.
"There is a disturbing lack of consistency in how police forces deal with officers who are convicted of crimes. The Home Office recognises this decisive problem for applicants but not for serving officers."
According to the data, obtained from 41 of 52 forces, a further 210 officers have resigned or been dismissed from their jobs since 2004 because of their convictions. Only 37 have been dismissed for dishonesty.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said officers convicted of crimes would not automatically lose their jobs.
Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and head of workforce development for Acpo, said: "The police service expects good conduct and probity from its officers and staff at all times. Where wrongdoing is alleged, police officers are investigated and action taken as appropriate to each case.
"It should be remembered that there are just over 140,000 police officers in the country. It is very rare that a person with a criminal conviction will be recruited into the police service.
"Where an officer has committed misconduct, which can include a criminal offence, a range of disciplinary actions can be taken. Each case is judged on its merit. The force concerned will then take action depending on a range of factors including the severity of the offence and its impact on an officer's ability to carry out their duties."
According to the figures, the forces with the highest number of police with convictions are the Metropolitan police with 274, West Midlands with 121 and Strathclyde, 107. Merseyside has 82, while Manchester and Kent have 44. Grampian has 34 and South Wales 31.
The forces with the highest percentage of officers with criminal convictions are Merseyside and West Midlands, followed by the Met and South Wales police.
Criminal Records Checks and a firm's recruitment policy
We are often asked as to what firms should say on the recruitment policy as it relates to criminal records checks. Below is our suggested wording:
___________________________________________________________________
When reviewing the results of a criminal records check an organisation should consider:
• Whether the offence would cast doubt on the individual’s or organisation’s reputation.
• Whether the offence would affect an individual’s ability to do the job.
• Whether the conviction is relevant to the particular post.
• The length of time since the offence occurred.
• The nature and background of the offence (e.g. violent crime or a history of violence which may impact on an organisation’s duty of care to its staff).
• The seriousness of the offence.
___________________________________________________________________
When reviewing the results of a criminal records check an organisation should consider:
• Whether the offence would cast doubt on the individual’s or organisation’s reputation.
• Whether the offence would affect an individual’s ability to do the job.
• Whether the conviction is relevant to the particular post.
• The length of time since the offence occurred.
• The nature and background of the offence (e.g. violent crime or a history of violence which may impact on an organisation’s duty of care to its staff).
• The seriousness of the offence.
Friday 6 March 2009
The Information Commissioner is showing his teeth... finally!
Big news today about a company which was holding, processing and selling personal data which was obtained with questionable means and without applicant consent. Powerchex issued the following press release:
____________________________________________
“Show respect for personal data” warns pre-employment screening company Powerchex
The Information Commissioner’s Office is showing its teeth in a case that may spur far reaching regulation of companies that maintain and sell personal data.
As part of an investigation of the Guardian, The Information Commissioner’s Office closed down an investigating firm that was maintaining and selling data from an illegal database. Buyers of the information, which include some of the biggest construction firms in the UK, will also be prosecuted.
Yesterday David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. "Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied [by the industry]. "The covert system enabled Mr Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees. Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database."
“Companies have often shown a cavalier attitude on how they store, transmit and protect personal data” states Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of pre-employment screening company Powerchex.
“Light sentences from the Information Commissioner, as well as a perceived impression that companies that break the code will not be prosecuted have resulted in a lax treatment of personal data including employee, customer and other such sensitive data.”
The Financial Services Authority, which regulates the UK financial services sector, recently issued a consultation paper to help firms ensure that they treat customer and employee data in a secure fashion.
Examples of good practice in terms of treating personal datas laid out in the report include:
· All customer/employee data to be disposed of securely using shredders or confidential waste bins
· Treating all data as confidential waste to eliminate confusion about which type of bin to use.
· Providing guidance for travelling or home-based staff on the secure disposal of customer data
· Conducting due diligence of data security standards at third-party suppliers before contracts are agreed
· Regular reviews of third party suppliers’ data security systems and controls
· Ensuring tht third-party suppliers’ vetting standards are adequate
· The use of secure internet links to transfer data to third parties
“Companies that handle personal data should make sure that third parties who process this data are also compliant with the Data Protection Act” says Kelly, “and of course, everyone must be registered with the Information Commissioner” she concludes.
________________________________________________________
The Guardian that broke the story after investigating reported:
More than 40 major British companies face legal action for allegedly buying secret personal data about thousands of workers they wanted to vet before employing them.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, will today publish a list of the companies he believes may have broken data protection laws, after an investigation by his office that was sparked by fears that many workers were being unfairly "blacklisted".
The commissioner alleges that the firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have, for many years, covertly bought details of workers' trade union activities and their conduct at work.
Thomas believes that workers have been unfairly denied employment because they have had no chance of challenging any inaccurate information, some of which has been stored for decades.
Asked by the Guardian to respond to the claims, many companies refused to comment. Others denied using the data to "blacklist" troublesome workers covertly, or said they had stopped buying the data.
The commissioner has already taken action rapidly to close down a private investigator who is accused of clandestinely compiling an "extensive intelligence database" of 3,000 workers with details that stretch back to the 1980s.
The commissioner is to prosecute the private detective, Ian Kerr, who is accused of selling the information to companies in the construction industry when they wanted to vet potential staff. Thomas said he had seized documents which, he says, show that files on individuals included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward, definite problems, no go", "do not touch", "orchestrated strike action" and "lazy and a trouble-stirrer".
David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied.
The covert system enabled Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information on workers for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees.
"Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database.
"Trading people's personal details in this way is unlawful and we are determined to stamp out this type of activity."
Construction workers have long complained that they have been stopped from getting work because companies were covertly turning away people they believed to be active trade unionists. Hard evidence has, until now, been hard to come by, and the construction industry has always denied it.
Steve Acheson, who believes he has been blacklisted, said he was "absolutely thrilled" by the findings of the commissioner's investigation.
The electrician, 55, from Denton in Manchester, said: "I've been angry for so long. It affects your character and demeanour - it's the fact it's so blatantly unjust. I was disgusted that one man could make a living from denying other men the right to work".
The Labour government has been criticised for passing a law banning the practice of so-called blacklists in 1999, but then, in a U-turn, deciding not to take the final step of implementing the law on the grounds that "there was no hard evidence that blacklisting was occurring". Technically, therefore, "blacklisting" is still legal.
Last night, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said it was prepared to review its position.
"The government is committed to monitoring any evidence that blacklisting is resurfacing in the UK," said a spokesman for the department. However, the information commissioner has powers to take action if he believes data protection laws have been broken.
His officials raided the offices of Kerr, the private investigator, in Droitwich, Worcestershire last week, seizing what the commissioner calls "an intelligence database" of 3,213 individuals.
Thomas said the "comprehensive card index system" held "sensitive" personal data, including details of trade union activity, employment conduct and personal relationships.
He added there was also information about whether the individual "may pose a threat to industrial relations between an employer and its employees". Some information was more than 30 years old, he said.
He has also seized invoices, which he says were issued by Kerr to companies for checking names on his database. He said they showed that the companies had paid Kerr an annual subscription and then a fixed fee for each name they wanted him to run through his database.
The Guardian understands that, in what appears to be a system for centralising records in the construction industry, companies sent information to Kerr so that it could be pooled with other firms.
Kerr agreed to close his business after the commissioner ordered him to stop selling the contents of the database on the grounds he had broken data protection laws.
Yesterday, Kerr said he was not operating a "blacklisting" service as he never made any judgments about the individuals and instead left it up to companies to decide whether to employ them.
Thomas launched his investigation last summer after an article in the Guardian about alleged blacklisting in the construction industry. The commissioner intends to order the construction companies to stop buying workers' personal data.
____________________________________________
“Show respect for personal data” warns pre-employment screening company Powerchex
The Information Commissioner’s Office is showing its teeth in a case that may spur far reaching regulation of companies that maintain and sell personal data.
As part of an investigation of the Guardian, The Information Commissioner’s Office closed down an investigating firm that was maintaining and selling data from an illegal database. Buyers of the information, which include some of the biggest construction firms in the UK, will also be prosecuted.
Yesterday David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. "Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied [by the industry]. "The covert system enabled Mr Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees. Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database."
“Companies have often shown a cavalier attitude on how they store, transmit and protect personal data” states Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of pre-employment screening company Powerchex.
“Light sentences from the Information Commissioner, as well as a perceived impression that companies that break the code will not be prosecuted have resulted in a lax treatment of personal data including employee, customer and other such sensitive data.”
The Financial Services Authority, which regulates the UK financial services sector, recently issued a consultation paper to help firms ensure that they treat customer and employee data in a secure fashion.
Examples of good practice in terms of treating personal datas laid out in the report include:
· All customer/employee data to be disposed of securely using shredders or confidential waste bins
· Treating all data as confidential waste to eliminate confusion about which type of bin to use.
· Providing guidance for travelling or home-based staff on the secure disposal of customer data
· Conducting due diligence of data security standards at third-party suppliers before contracts are agreed
· Regular reviews of third party suppliers’ data security systems and controls
· Ensuring tht third-party suppliers’ vetting standards are adequate
· The use of secure internet links to transfer data to third parties
“Companies that handle personal data should make sure that third parties who process this data are also compliant with the Data Protection Act” says Kelly, “and of course, everyone must be registered with the Information Commissioner” she concludes.
________________________________________________________
The Guardian that broke the story after investigating reported:
More than 40 major British companies face legal action for allegedly buying secret personal data about thousands of workers they wanted to vet before employing them.
The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, will today publish a list of the companies he believes may have broken data protection laws, after an investigation by his office that was sparked by fears that many workers were being unfairly "blacklisted".
The commissioner alleges that the firms, including Balfour Beatty, Sir Robert McAlpine, Laing O'Rourke and Costain, have, for many years, covertly bought details of workers' trade union activities and their conduct at work.
Thomas believes that workers have been unfairly denied employment because they have had no chance of challenging any inaccurate information, some of which has been stored for decades.
Asked by the Guardian to respond to the claims, many companies refused to comment. Others denied using the data to "blacklist" troublesome workers covertly, or said they had stopped buying the data.
The commissioner has already taken action rapidly to close down a private investigator who is accused of clandestinely compiling an "extensive intelligence database" of 3,000 workers with details that stretch back to the 1980s.
The commissioner is to prosecute the private detective, Ian Kerr, who is accused of selling the information to companies in the construction industry when they wanted to vet potential staff. Thomas said he had seized documents which, he says, show that files on individuals included comments such as "communist party", "ex-shop steward, definite problems, no go", "do not touch", "orchestrated strike action" and "lazy and a trouble-stirrer".
David Smith, the deputy information commissioner, said: "This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act. Not only was personal information held on individuals without their knowledge or consent, but the very existence of the database was repeatedly denied.
The covert system enabled Kerr to unlawfully trade personal information on workers for many years, helping the construction industry to vet prospective employees.
"Kerr held information on thousands of construction workers and profited by checking names against his database.
"Trading people's personal details in this way is unlawful and we are determined to stamp out this type of activity."
Construction workers have long complained that they have been stopped from getting work because companies were covertly turning away people they believed to be active trade unionists. Hard evidence has, until now, been hard to come by, and the construction industry has always denied it.
Steve Acheson, who believes he has been blacklisted, said he was "absolutely thrilled" by the findings of the commissioner's investigation.
The electrician, 55, from Denton in Manchester, said: "I've been angry for so long. It affects your character and demeanour - it's the fact it's so blatantly unjust. I was disgusted that one man could make a living from denying other men the right to work".
The Labour government has been criticised for passing a law banning the practice of so-called blacklists in 1999, but then, in a U-turn, deciding not to take the final step of implementing the law on the grounds that "there was no hard evidence that blacklisting was occurring". Technically, therefore, "blacklisting" is still legal.
Last night, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said it was prepared to review its position.
"The government is committed to monitoring any evidence that blacklisting is resurfacing in the UK," said a spokesman for the department. However, the information commissioner has powers to take action if he believes data protection laws have been broken.
His officials raided the offices of Kerr, the private investigator, in Droitwich, Worcestershire last week, seizing what the commissioner calls "an intelligence database" of 3,213 individuals.
Thomas said the "comprehensive card index system" held "sensitive" personal data, including details of trade union activity, employment conduct and personal relationships.
He added there was also information about whether the individual "may pose a threat to industrial relations between an employer and its employees". Some information was more than 30 years old, he said.
He has also seized invoices, which he says were issued by Kerr to companies for checking names on his database. He said they showed that the companies had paid Kerr an annual subscription and then a fixed fee for each name they wanted him to run through his database.
The Guardian understands that, in what appears to be a system for centralising records in the construction industry, companies sent information to Kerr so that it could be pooled with other firms.
Kerr agreed to close his business after the commissioner ordered him to stop selling the contents of the database on the grounds he had broken data protection laws.
Yesterday, Kerr said he was not operating a "blacklisting" service as he never made any judgments about the individuals and instead left it up to companies to decide whether to employ them.
Thomas launched his investigation last summer after an article in the Guardian about alleged blacklisting in the construction industry. The commissioner intends to order the construction companies to stop buying workers' personal data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
