I am sure that everyone has been appauled by the lapses in control that led to innocent children being abused by the people they should trust most, their childminders. This should serve as a reminder that a proper pre-employment screening policy should not exclude casual workers.
____________________________________________________________
A convicted child sex offender was able to obtain employment in a nursery after staff failed to carry out the required pre-employment screening checks.
Andrew Smith was employed in the kitchen of Norwood Manor Day Nursery through employment agency Reed despite his name appearing on the sex offender’s register after he was caught sending a string of perverted internet messages and webcam footage of him performing a solo sex act to someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover police officer.
Smith subsequently served 6 months of a 12 month jail sentence and was placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years. The Criminal Records check that is required for those working in nurseries would have revealed this but staff failed to comply.
Alexandra Kelly, a Director at Powerchex, one of the leading pre-employment screening providers, believes that Smith being a temporary employee is no excuse for a low level of vetting, “We advise our clients to determine the level of vetting required using a risk based approach. Temporary workers pose the same, if not a bigger risk to the company than permanent employees. With temps there is an emphasis on the speed of vetting but companies should work closely with their provider of pre-employment screening to ensure that this need does not prevent proper due diligence taking place.”
Showing posts with label vetting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vetting. Show all posts
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
HR, Facebook and Screening
This is an ongoing debate between HR departments, recruiters and screening firms. Should we check facebook profiles? Our standard response to all our clients is that we will check business profiles such as zoom and linkedin, but we will not check social networking profiles. Paul Reeves, who is a partner at the law firm of Stephenson Harwood wrote a very interesting posting in Managing people, Technology on Tue, 18/08/2009 - 13:38.
The article first appeared in HR Zone at: : http://www.hrzone.co.uk/topic/hr-snooping-facing-facebook
What do you think?
_______________________________________________________
In a recent and high profile example of some of the issues associated with social networking sites, the wife of the recently appointed chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, disclosed details of their personal life and address on her Facebook page, compromising their personal and, potentially, national safety.
There have also been recent examples of footballers and cricketers using Twitter to air their views about their employers. The blurring of the lines between private and public space, which is part of the social networking phenomenon, is key to the problem. These very public spaces have the capacity to threaten existing jobs, future careers, personal safety and corporate reputations as well as providing opportunities to contravene copyright and other laws. Organisations and individuals all have a role to play in managing the impact of social networking.
Reputational damage
An innocent exchange of wall postings on Facebook could lead to an employee breaching their contractual obligations by, for example, disclosing confidential information about a company's business or its clients. This could clearly have an adverse effect so an employer should investigate any allegations of this nature with a view to taking disciplinary action.
An employee who makes derogatory comments about their work, or their colleagues, on their profile could face disciplinary action as well as possible defamation or libel actions, not to mention the potential damage to the company's public image. Employers should consider carefully the type of conduct that warrants disciplinary action and make this clear to employees.
The way an employee behaves in their personal life may not be how their employer would like them to behave but, provided it does not impact their work or the company's reputation, then any disciplinary action would be inappropriate and any dismissal as a result could lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. So not everything an employee posts on their social networking site should have an impact on their employment.
Bullying and harassment
The ability to join work groups on networking sites creates the opportunity for 'banter' between colleagues. In extreme cases, this could lead to a complaint of bullying or harassment for which an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, so complaints must be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. Employers need to be alert to these issues and the potential risks they pose.
Managing employer access when recruiting
Some employers have viewed the rise in the use of social networking sites as an opportunity to vet job applicants for their suitability. This can be a risky tactic as it exposes employers to potential discrimination claims. If an applicant who has not been offered a job discovers that their profile has been accessed as part of the recruitment process they could allege that information about their age, race, sex or religion displayed on their profile played a part in the decision to reject them.
While the company may have rejected them for a completely unrelated and fair reason, the existence of this information, which would be discloseable in litigation, will provide an additional hurdle to overcome in defending any claim. If employers do use this as a recruitment tool, then it is advisable to have a paper-trail setting out why a candidate was unsuccessful.
Managing employee access
In light of the issues posed by social networking sites, many employers have considered preventing access to such sites or monitoring employees' use. Each of these options presents its own issues and, despite the potential risks, these sites can be useful for building business networks - LinkedIn and Plaxo are designed for professional business relationships. Restricted use could, therefore, be preferable to a total ban.
In addition, employees could see a total ban as an overreaction by employers to what is an increasingly common form of communication. Banning staff from using the sites could lower morale, especially in industries where long hours are common and access for reasonable periods is used as a break from work.
To manage this issue, employers should consider monitoring employee's use to ensure it is being used appropriately. Recently, an employee who was claiming to be sick updated his Facebook page with the fact that he was absent due to a hangover. The employer used this as evidence against him in a disciplinary process.
Employers should have an internet usage policy in place to monitor employees in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Public bodies must also factor in the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular article 8: the right to respect for private and family life.
Many internet policies were drafted before social networking sites became popular and may need to be updated to make sure the now cover these sites and the potential issues they throw up. Any changes should be communicated to all employees as this will strengthen an employer's position in the event of any disciplinary action or the need to defend any subsequent claim.
Unauthorised downloads
Employees often use social networking sites to share photographs or videos, including possibly unauthorised data while at work. This could not only damage the company's IT system, but is likely to be breach copyright.
Ownership of information
Where employees use social networking sites for business networking purposes via the employer's IT system, employers may be able to claim ownership of their profiles so that they can retain any information relating to business contacts. This can be useful for employers but they must make their employees aware of this position by including it in any internet policy.
Protecting organisations and individuals
To protect themselves under the current legislation, companies should:
Set out the parameters of internet usage (including downloads)
The consequences for breach of any internet policy , including reference to other related policies e.g. equal opportunities, harassment and bullying
Inform employees about the level of monitoring and the policy itself, including any changes
Follow fair procedures in respect of any disciplinary action and apply the policy consistently
Not be afraid to use information from social networking sites to deal with any misconduct, provided this is done appropriately.
For employees, the onus is on them to understand the policy and to ensure that their own site pages do not breach their employer's policies. They should also bear in mind that their pages are visible to millions of people globally and the consequences this may have.
The article first appeared in HR Zone at: : http://www.hrzone.co.uk/topic/hr-snooping-facing-facebook
What do you think?
_______________________________________________________
In a recent and high profile example of some of the issues associated with social networking sites, the wife of the recently appointed chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, disclosed details of their personal life and address on her Facebook page, compromising their personal and, potentially, national safety.
There have also been recent examples of footballers and cricketers using Twitter to air their views about their employers. The blurring of the lines between private and public space, which is part of the social networking phenomenon, is key to the problem. These very public spaces have the capacity to threaten existing jobs, future careers, personal safety and corporate reputations as well as providing opportunities to contravene copyright and other laws. Organisations and individuals all have a role to play in managing the impact of social networking.
Reputational damage
An innocent exchange of wall postings on Facebook could lead to an employee breaching their contractual obligations by, for example, disclosing confidential information about a company's business or its clients. This could clearly have an adverse effect so an employer should investigate any allegations of this nature with a view to taking disciplinary action.
An employee who makes derogatory comments about their work, or their colleagues, on their profile could face disciplinary action as well as possible defamation or libel actions, not to mention the potential damage to the company's public image. Employers should consider carefully the type of conduct that warrants disciplinary action and make this clear to employees.
The way an employee behaves in their personal life may not be how their employer would like them to behave but, provided it does not impact their work or the company's reputation, then any disciplinary action would be inappropriate and any dismissal as a result could lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. So not everything an employee posts on their social networking site should have an impact on their employment.
Bullying and harassment
The ability to join work groups on networking sites creates the opportunity for 'banter' between colleagues. In extreme cases, this could lead to a complaint of bullying or harassment for which an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, so complaints must be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. Employers need to be alert to these issues and the potential risks they pose.
Managing employer access when recruiting
Some employers have viewed the rise in the use of social networking sites as an opportunity to vet job applicants for their suitability. This can be a risky tactic as it exposes employers to potential discrimination claims. If an applicant who has not been offered a job discovers that their profile has been accessed as part of the recruitment process they could allege that information about their age, race, sex or religion displayed on their profile played a part in the decision to reject them.
While the company may have rejected them for a completely unrelated and fair reason, the existence of this information, which would be discloseable in litigation, will provide an additional hurdle to overcome in defending any claim. If employers do use this as a recruitment tool, then it is advisable to have a paper-trail setting out why a candidate was unsuccessful.
Managing employee access
In light of the issues posed by social networking sites, many employers have considered preventing access to such sites or monitoring employees' use. Each of these options presents its own issues and, despite the potential risks, these sites can be useful for building business networks - LinkedIn and Plaxo are designed for professional business relationships. Restricted use could, therefore, be preferable to a total ban.
In addition, employees could see a total ban as an overreaction by employers to what is an increasingly common form of communication. Banning staff from using the sites could lower morale, especially in industries where long hours are common and access for reasonable periods is used as a break from work.
To manage this issue, employers should consider monitoring employee's use to ensure it is being used appropriately. Recently, an employee who was claiming to be sick updated his Facebook page with the fact that he was absent due to a hangover. The employer used this as evidence against him in a disciplinary process.
Employers should have an internet usage policy in place to monitor employees in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Public bodies must also factor in the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular article 8: the right to respect for private and family life.
Many internet policies were drafted before social networking sites became popular and may need to be updated to make sure the now cover these sites and the potential issues they throw up. Any changes should be communicated to all employees as this will strengthen an employer's position in the event of any disciplinary action or the need to defend any subsequent claim.
Unauthorised downloads
Employees often use social networking sites to share photographs or videos, including possibly unauthorised data while at work. This could not only damage the company's IT system, but is likely to be breach copyright.
Ownership of information
Where employees use social networking sites for business networking purposes via the employer's IT system, employers may be able to claim ownership of their profiles so that they can retain any information relating to business contacts. This can be useful for employers but they must make their employees aware of this position by including it in any internet policy.
Protecting organisations and individuals
To protect themselves under the current legislation, companies should:
Set out the parameters of internet usage (including downloads)
The consequences for breach of any internet policy , including reference to other related policies e.g. equal opportunities, harassment and bullying
Inform employees about the level of monitoring and the policy itself, including any changes
Follow fair procedures in respect of any disciplinary action and apply the policy consistently
Not be afraid to use information from social networking sites to deal with any misconduct, provided this is done appropriately.
For employees, the onus is on them to understand the policy and to ensure that their own site pages do not breach their employer's policies. They should also bear in mind that their pages are visible to millions of people globally and the consequences this may have.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Vetting tenants - What should you check before letting someone into your property?
In this weekend's FT there was an article about the increase in the level of checking tenants. This is fully undestandable in the current economic environment, but what kinds of checks are appropriate for a tenant?
"Letting agents are putting prospective tenants through rigorous credit checks as property owners want to see proof of income, including bonuses, as well as highly personal information such as the value of investment and share portfolios and savings accounts.
Knight Frank, the agent, said it had reviewed its reference process for new tenants to make sure it could provide enough data for landlords. Rather than using traditional credit checking agencies it is now conducting manual checks itself.
In some cases it is having to procure an indication of the tenants’ net wealth from their banks as well as guarantees from their employers that their jobs are permanent and not under threat, and details of their anticipated bonuses. " states the article in the FT.
Considering that the risk to the landlord is similar -if not greater- to the risk to an employer, then it would only make sense that checks that confirm the likelihood of the tenant remaining in employment should be conducted. Obviously an employer is unlikely to confirm whether they intend to make someone redundant in the near future, but asking the right questions may give you a good indication as to the relative job security of a prospective tenant.
"Letting agents are putting prospective tenants through rigorous credit checks as property owners want to see proof of income, including bonuses, as well as highly personal information such as the value of investment and share portfolios and savings accounts.
Knight Frank, the agent, said it had reviewed its reference process for new tenants to make sure it could provide enough data for landlords. Rather than using traditional credit checking agencies it is now conducting manual checks itself.
In some cases it is having to procure an indication of the tenants’ net wealth from their banks as well as guarantees from their employers that their jobs are permanent and not under threat, and details of their anticipated bonuses. " states the article in the FT.
Considering that the risk to the landlord is similar -if not greater- to the risk to an employer, then it would only make sense that checks that confirm the likelihood of the tenant remaining in employment should be conducted. Obviously an employer is unlikely to confirm whether they intend to make someone redundant in the near future, but asking the right questions may give you a good indication as to the relative job security of a prospective tenant.
Monday, 23 March 2009
CIFAS Staff Fraud Database
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
