National Staff Dismissal Register to go live this month.

S

.Spiralling.

I've just read about this on the BBC website, and I'm shocked it's being allowed to go ahead. The implications don't bear thinking about. How many completely innocent people are going to end up on this database and find themselves unemployable?

Here's the story:

Workers accused of theft or damage could soon find themselves blacklisted on a register to be shared among employers. It will be good for profits but campaigners say innocent people could find it impossible to get another job.

To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare. An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty - regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime - which bosses can access when vetting potential employees.
But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.

start_quote_rb.gif
Individuals would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted
end_quote_rb.gif

Hannah Reed of the TUC



Organisers say that major companies including Harrods, Selfridges, Reed Managed Services and Mothercare have already signed up to the scheme. By the end of May they will be able to check whether candidates for jobs have faced allegations of stealing, forgery, fraud, damaging company property or causing a loss to their employers and suppliers. Workers sacked for these offences will be included on the register, regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them. Also on the list will be employees who resigned before they could face disciplinary proceedings at work.

The project has attracted little publicity. But the BBC News website can reveal that trade unions and civil liberties campaigners are warning that it leaves workers vulnerable to the threat of false accusations. TUC policy officer Hannah Reed says that while criminal activity in the workplace can never be condoned, she fears such a system is open to abuse.
o.gif

"The TUC is seriously concerned that this register can only lead to people being shut out from the job market by an employer who falsely accuses them of misconduct or sacks them because they bear them a grudge. Individuals would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted.
"The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist employers to make safe appointments when recruiting staff to work with vulnerable groups. The CRB already provides appropriate and properly regulated protection for employers. Under the new register, an employee may not be aware they have been blacklisted or have any right to appeal."


James Welch, the legal director of human rights group Liberty, also says that he is concerned that the register does not offer sufficient redress to the falsely accused.
"This scheme appears to bypass existing laws which protect employees by limiting the circumstances when information about possible criminal activity can be shared with potential employers."

Data protection
The register is an initiative of Action Against Business Crime (AABC), a partnership between the Home Office and the British Retail Consortium.

Set up by Surrey-based firm Hicom Business Solutions, the database will allow employers to search for potential workers by name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and previous employer. Records on individuals - accessible online via an encrypted password system - will be kept for a five-year period and can include photos. Mike Schuck, chief executive of AABC, says that theft by members of staff costs the British economy billions of pounds each year and rejects the notion that the register is a blacklist. He says that all participating companies will be obliged to abide by the Data Protection Act and that workers named on the database - maintained by AABC - will have the right to change their entries if they are inaccurate. Should a dispute take place between an employee and an employer about whether an incident occurred, Mr Schuck adds, the worker will be able to appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office.

"We are limiting access to the database to employers who can comply with the Information Commissioner's employment practices code," he says. "We're not going to allow Mr Smith's hardware store. We're quite open about this. People will be told when they apply for jobs that they may be checked as part of the application process.

"Theft in the workplace hurts staff as much as employers because it puts everyone under suspicion."

Nonetheless, many workers may get a nasty surprise when old allegations return to haunt them when they next apply for a job.

WHAT WILL GET YOU ON IT

Theft or attempted theft of money, merchandise or property from company, suppliers or customers
Falsification or forgery of documents
Fraudulently obtaining money, services or information
Damaging company property
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jezclayton

Tim R-T-C

Free Member
Mar 19, 2008
548
64
The North
Do you mean innocent because they haven't been convicted in a court of law or innocent because they haven't actually stolen something from their employers.

Innocent in either sense - from the sounds of it, registered firms can post identifying details about an employee and then any comments about them.

There is enormous potential for this to be misused by business owners. Imagine if I walked out of my job today to work for a rival, the boss might well take offence to this and post some claim to this website (for example claiming that I left before facing a disciplinary hearing). If I apply to another job in the future, this will appear if they search. There is seemingly nothing I can do about it because the public cannot access this website and I would have no reason to suspect a bad reference has been written.

I cannot believe that a government body is behind this project. Normally I am really supportive of schemes (I support the national DNA database etc.), but the potential for misuse here is staggeringly high.
 
Upvote 0
I cant believe this! I agree in principal to the idea but how on earth can it be made fair, so that as you say Tim people aren't added to it by a vengeful ex employer or are accused of something without complete proof and get dismissed because of it? Seems like a hard one to police.
 
Upvote 0
S

.Spiralling.

Do you mean innocent because they haven't been convicted in a court of law or innocent because they haven't actually stolen something from their employers.

I think either applies. People can be added when there is not enough evidence for the police to charge (and I agree that this doesn't necessarily make someone innocent, but it also doesn't necessarily make them guilty) and people can be added when they haven't done anything but someone has a grudge against them. The opportunities to abuse this system are numerous.
 
Upvote 0

Jezclayton

Free Member
Mar 2, 2008
545
68
Berkshire
Unfortunately, whilst I agree with the potential for slander/misuse, this is the end result of granting employees, both existing and prospective, with too many rights. The existence of the database only serves to illustrate that employers feel they are not being given relevant information at the initial selection process.

As a prospective employer, why should I not have the right to verify a persons background?

In respect of employers who abuse the system, I am quite sure there are numerous remedies open to the offended party.
 
Upvote 0

AdamJ

Free Member
Oct 12, 2007
776
170
Tewkesbury
can you not do this by calling previous employers?

On the last two occasions we hired someone we approached their previous employer for a reference to be greeted with a dizzying silence and non-response. No help whatsover, didn't even acknowledge our letter(s).

The principle of the database is good, why shouldn't employers have access to this kind of information if its possible to do? There just needs to be some kind of protection against misuse though - all to often you hear of perfectly good employment relations going sour when someone decides to leave and the employer takes it personally.
 
Upvote 0

wolfluecker

Free Member
Aug 9, 2006
34
5
Lewes, UK
On the last two occasions we hired someone we approached their previous employer for a reference to be greeted with a dizzying silence and non-response. No help whatsover, didn't even acknowledge our letter(s).

Isn't that due to the fact that you're not allowed to give a bad reference, only to decline giving one (which in itself is then a bad reference).

On balance, the risks of this scheme outweigh the benefits. A disgruntled employer could easily ruin someone's whole career by registering them on there. And you know how it goes, no prospective employer would ever bother to find out whether allegations against Candidate A are actually true or not, they would just move on to Candidate B.
 
Upvote 0
Unfortunately, whilst I agree with the potential for slander/misuse, this is the end result of granting employees, both existing and prospective, with too many rights. The existence of the database only serves to illustrate that employers feel they are not being given relevant information at the initial selection process.

As a prospective employer, why should I not have the right to verify a persons background?

In respect of employers who abuse the system, I am quite sure there are numerous remedies open to the offended party.

I agree entirely. Whilst I would never use such a database unfairly I feel that it's existance has been prompted by employment law being so heavily biased in favour of the employee in recent years.
 
Upvote 0
Isn't that due to the fact that you're not allowed to give a bad reference, only to decline giving one (which in itself is then a bad reference).

Exactly and what a totally and utterly absurd situation that is!! I was asked by an employee I was getting rid of last year for a reference and at the same time he reminded me I wasn't allowed to give him a bad one! On the day he left he asked me for it and I said I that he told me I couldn't give him a reference. He looked puzzled until I reminded him that I couldn't give him a bad reference therefore I couldn't give him one at all! Prat! :D
 
Upvote 0
So, any employer can accuse any employee of theft and despite there potentially being no foundations for this and no trial or official involvement from any 3rd party, you are then in employment's eyes a thief and will remain unemployable???? I understand that if you are prosecuted and found guilty that that would be different but this is just the employer assuming and acting as judge in order to cause possible defamation of character that will potentially ruin the victim's employability.

This is totally crazy - there has to be some sort of trial to keep this in line with human rights as employers are far away from judges and thinking back to some of the power-crazed and unethical employers I've met over the years, this could open up huge misuse. Another reason to work for yourself.
 
Upvote 0
...I wasn't allowed to give him a bad one! On the day he left he asked me for it and I said I that he told me I couldn't give him a reference. He looked puzzled until I reminded him that I couldn't give him a bad reference therefore I couldn't give him one at all! Prat! :D
This is a urban myth. You can give a bad reference as long as the reference is factual.
 
Upvote 0

Philip Hoyle

Free Member
  • Apr 3, 2007
    2,247
    1,092
    Lancashire
    So, any employer can accuse any employee of theft and despite there potentially being no foundations for this and no trial or official involvement from any 3rd party, you are then in employment's eyes a thief and will remain unemployable???? I understand that if you are prosecuted and found guilty that that would be different but this is just the employer assuming and acting as judge in order to cause possible defamation of character that will potentially ruin the victim's employability.

    Not at all. Employment law still applies and is very strong. In the previous employment, the employee has all the usual rights and can claim wrongful dismissal if the employer doesn't follow the rigid procedures laid down in law. If an employee is dismissed and there are "no foundations .... no trial ... or official involvement from any 3rd party" then the employee would probably win an employment tribunal case for unfair dismissal. In such a case, the employee could apply to have their database record corrected.
     
    Upvote 0

    Tim R-T-C

    Free Member
    Mar 19, 2008
    548
    64
    The North
    Not at all. Employment law still applies and is very strong. In the previous employment, the employee has all the usual rights and can claim wrongful dismissal if the employer doesn't follow the rigid procedures laid down in law. If an employee is dismissed and there are "no foundations .... no trial ... or official involvement from any 3rd party" then the employee would probably win an employment tribunal case for unfair dismissal. In such a case, the employee could apply to have their database record corrected.

    However, who says that the employee was fired - they might have left of their own accord, but according to the news article, an aggrieved boss could claim that they left just before getting a disciplinary.

    As for getting the database changed, firstly it might take you a while to know that that is even the problem - afterall, if you did not suspect your boss to be the grudge holding type then you would have no reason to suspect the comments might exist. Then taking legal action to get it removed could take months, during which time any job you apply to would potentially be prejudiced against you because of the claims.
     
    Upvote 0
    A

    alloageorge

    the carrot that is dangled infront of less than honest staff is a good reference if they leave quietly so cant see this being used in the way that was meant.also would people be identified by national insuranse number or name?if by name then anyone called smith or clark will never work again.
     
    Upvote 0

    KidsBeeHappy

    Free Member
    Oct 9, 2007
    7,371
    1,573
    Sunny Troon
    I think a database of serial "unfair dismissal" and "harrassment" claimants would be a good idea. People who have lodged more than one claim. As this couldn't be argued with as fact, and if you're taking on someone whose sued their employer twice, you know how it's going to end with them......
     
    Upvote 0
    Really? I never knew that. Where is this referenced in employment law, do you know? I would be interested to check this out. :)
    In the pivotal case of Spring v Guardian Assurance plc and Others, the House of Lords upheld a claim brought by an employee against his employer regarding an unfavourable reference that the employer had supplied. In the course of his judgment, Lord Woolf stated that where an employee cannot be expected to enter into a class of employment except on the basis that his or her employer will provide a full and frank reference, it is necessary to imply a term into the contract that the employer would provide such a reference based on facts revealed from "reasonably careful enquiries". On this basis, it is important that employers do not 'churn out' a reference on a whim, but should speak to the line manager of the employee, before denigrating the star worker, or praising an incompetent employee he or she knows nothing about.
    http://www.hrzone.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=164150&d=1063&h=0&f=0&dateformat=%o %B %Y
     
    Upvote 0
    This idea might legitimise what already happens. I've suffered informal contact (by phone) between a prospective employer and a previous one, twice now and without my knowledge on both occasions, and only happened to find out later about what was said (and only as a result of disclosure through separate legal proceedings). Thankfully it didn't stop me getting either job but it is still worrying that no step was taken to make me aware of what was being said for me to comment.

    It is very worrying that this insidious informal grapevine exists and it only serves to reduce trust at a time when we could do without that. A formal database may serve to a degree as a lightning conductor and make what already goes on between employers a more transparent process. Employees are likely to be entitled to have a copy of the information held about them and to have it corrected or even removed.

    These benefits will probably be limited though, the existing informal practices will probably continue anyway, while employees are left scratching their heads wondering why they are being refused job after job and are left devoid of the information that they need to defend themselves.

    The net effect of the proposed database (and the informal grapevine that it seeks to replace) will probably be to make things worse. Less trust between employer and employee, less respect and sense of duty and obligation, more crime, less concern, lowered levels of conscientiousness, more theft. All contrary to the aims of the database and bad for everyone.
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles

    Join UK Business Forums for free business advice