AHHHH! HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

Ethel

We have received a Notice from the US Customs Service that a former employee (worked for us less that 2 years) has applied for a job with them. They have sent us a signed release from the employee to release his personnel record and they want to come on our site and speak with his fellow co-workers. Does anyone know if the Homeland Security Act mandates that an employer accomodate all of these requests? It particularly makes me nervous about using company time to let them speak to his former co-workers -- we have no way of knowing what these individuals think of him or what they would say. I'm confused -- need your help.

JM in ATL

I'm confused to. Are you asking should you turn over his file or should you allow these people to come to your office and disturb your working environment to ask a few questions about a former employee?

Either way, my answers are yes, if you have a signed release authorizing your company to provide all of that information and no, i would not allow them to disrupt my office.

Ethel

Sorry for not being clearer -- but yes, should I turn over the personnel file without a court order and it's not so much the time and disruption, it's a question of liability if any of these co-workers defame him on our property, on paid time -- does this make us liable?

Parabeagle

I think you need to cooperate. I remember a former employee of ours who joined the military and his job required a top secret security clearance. Defense Intelligence Agency showed upon our doorstep with a signed release from the individual wishing to speak with coworkers. On the advice of our counsel, we complied.

If I'm not mistaken the results of these interviews the officials conduct with employees are confidential and protected, and not releaseable to the candidate so I think the chances of your liability exposure for any defamatory remarks made by former coworkers is pretty minimal. Good luck.

Don D

I think I've read that Homeland Security has some level of special dispensation from the regular rules. But, I tend to say I would still come down on the side of company policy. Friday, the receptionist called me to say an FBI agent was in the lobby. He was obviously proud of his status because he talked louder than any person I had ever encountered in a lobby. He showed me his badge/credentials quickly and then a form with an employee's name on it and said he was 'checking him out'. He referred to the guy as 'an ex-employee'. He wanted far more than rank and dates. He also insisted on talking with others at the company and having all sorts of subjective questions answered. I quietly told him our policy and told him he would not be able to speak with employees on duty. His next move amazed me. He looked down, reached for his jacket and pushed his FBI lapel pin toward me and said, "I'm with the FBI". I very professionally told him again what our policy is. I told him the employee's beginning date of employment and confirmed that he is still employed, but that he is deployed. I would have thought he might have known that already.

mwild31

x:-)

"I told him the employee's beginning date of employment and confirmed that he is still employed, but that he is deployed. I would have thought he might have known that already."

Given the current scrutiny of our Intelligence Agencies, why am I not surprised that he didn't....

Policies exist for a reason & they should be exercised at ALL times, including with government types.

AJ SPHR

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-09-04 AT 01:58PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Don, what a scenario! I'm curious, though, as to what policies you could reference to keep him out? This isn't a sarcastic question, I was just thinking through the policies we have in our handbook and I'm not sure that we currently have anything that would specifically address this situation. We do have a policy on Employee Access to HR Files - that basically just gives the requirement to make an appointment and can only view and make notes of material in the file. How could I modify a policy to address your specific scenario?

I just looked at our Access to HR Files policy and maybe this statement would cover us:
"Other than those specified by the law, PMSLIC is not required to
provide copies of records nor permit copies to be made; however, employees are allowed to make
notes."

mwild31

Don't know about Don, but here's mine:

Reference Checks and Verification of Employment

All inquiries regarding a current or former (Company Name) employee must be referred to the Human Resources Manager. No (Company Name) employee may issue a reference letter for any current or former employee without the permission of the Human Resources Manager.

If we are asked to provide a reference for you, we will limit it to position(s) held and dates of employment. We will not release any other information concerning your employment with us unless the request is in writing and is authorized by you.

I'm probably going to beef this up a bit - but it's a good starting point for us.

AJ SPHR

You're right, we do have a Verification of Employment policy that states the following, and would probably provide good defense in this kind of scenario. Thanks, mwild!
"Employees who receive requests to provide employment verifications or references to individuals
outside of [Company] for current or past [Company] employees should direct those requests to Human
Resources. Upon receiving a request for employment verification, Human Resources will provide only
the dates of employment and job title. Verification of salary will be made only after receiving written
authorization from the employee. [Company] does not release any other information, such as job
performance, attendance, rehire status, etc."

Don D

We do have a policy about non-emergency visits to the plant. Also a well defined policy restricting employment verification comments to HR personnel only, which includes a policy prohibiting any release relating to facts other than dates of employment and job title, except in response to legal process such as a subpoena. We prohibit by policy the kind of subjective comments the FBI asks for when they interview people. We also have a policy of not calling employees from the floor or allowing visitors to the floor. These policies would kick in had he been the FBI, a bill collector, a bail bondsman, a local police officer, his preacher or her ex-husband. That he wore the lapel pin was at the moment unimportant to everyone else but himslf. I do not think we should soften or flex our policies depending on the source of the request.

Ethel

Since this gentlemen is invoking the Homeland Security Act, does it make a difference. I have heard that it gives broad license to govt. agencies. I went into Gov site, but could not locate any thing re privacy except regarding federal employees. This is a case where ignorance is NOT bliss.

marc

I want to commend both Don and Mwild for sticking to their company policy "guns" on this issue. My knee jerk reaction would probably have been included the thought that this was Homeland Security and they are just trying to protect all of us.

When my son joined the Marines and qualified for the Signal Intelligence section, they did an extensive background check in connection with the security clearance he would need. They talked with neighbors, teachers, friends and employers. Everyone cooperated, as far as I know, but the interviews were conducted in a way that was convenient for the person(s) being interviewed. They did not use any heavy handed techniques, nor were they especially demanding from the feedback I got from the interviewees.

That was before 9/11, perhaps it is a different ballgame now, but I don't think the approach can disrupt private enterprise without due process.