keeping some personnel records separate from the original personal file

System · September 2002

Why should I9's and employee medical records be kept separate from the employees personnel file? Are there any other records that should be kept separate and if so why?

Don D · September 2002

>Why should I9's and employee medical records be kept separate from the
>employees personnel file? Are there any other records that should be
>kept separate and if so why?

The ADA mandates that medical records be kept separately. Theoretically this keeps such records from being instrumental in personnel decisions and restricts access. The main reason to keep your I-9s separate is in case of an audit of those files. If separate, the auditor would not have ready access to the entire personnel file. For our own ease of retrieval and other internal needs, we also keep employee training records in separate files.

Gillian · September 2002

I-9's should be separate because you don't want enforcement agencies looking in personnel files when they want to review them. Medical files should be separate for privacy reasons. Information about investigations should be kept separate, again for privacy reasons. Beyond that, I have heard rational reasons for keeping other stuff separate, but at some point one has to wonder how practical it is to keep it all separate - time, filing space, etc.

Lori B · September 2002

If you ever have the pleasure of conducting something like a theft or a harassment investigation, I would keep that in separate investigation files too. If the outcome is that discipline is warranted, I would include the disciplinary doc in the personnel file. All the back up/investigation notes though, really belong else where.

Dottie · September 2002

We actually had the "separate" thing backfire on us recently. I would be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on this. We had a housekeeping employee who was under medical restrictions. A copy of the restrictions was placed in her "Confidential" file -- where medical, etc. records are kept. We had a change in personnel in this department at the supervisory level. Coincidentally, there was also a change in the HR department at the same time, which meant there was no one who was aware of the situation. The new supervisor did not have access to the Confidential file. He gave her a hard time about her refusing to perform certain tasks. She tried to obey orders and wound up aggravating her physical condition. It became a Worker's Comp issue during which the whole story came out. She has since been transferred to a new position where her restrictions are not an issue -- the only problem for us is that she is overpaid for the new position. None of her co-workers make anything close to what she is making. Does anyone have any thoughts on this as to how we can avoid such a situation in the future?

System · September 2002

Dottie, I never thought that "separate" meant it had to be totally "confidential." I thought it was more like "need-to-know." As you pointed out, a supervisor certainly needs to know about work restrictions. I'm just shooting from the hip here. I'd be interested to hear how other people handle this. x:-/

James Sokolowski
Senior Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers

Don D · September 2002

Separate means separate, apart from, in a different location, at least to me. And the rule is that the meds should be under lock and key with restricted access. I can see how Dottie's dilemma would happen and don't know of an answer. The EEOC would probably suggest, "A new supervisor should review all subordinate files and meet with the Human Resources Manager to learn of any special accommodations or special needs of his/her new people." What a canned unworkable response! That would not answer Dottie's dilemma. On another job, the Vice President mandated that the file would be set up this way: Alphabetical, with a green file for general information, a red file for medical information and a yellow file for training and safety information, all rubber banded together. The illegal (I think) part of it was the files were all back-to-back and whoever pulled one, pulled all three. The VP ruled that this met the definition of separate and you just shouldn't look in the red file. Right.

moneyman · September 2002

I had one seminar speaker mention that separate should mean separate cabinets or file drawers if possible. He had heard of instances like you mention, that each individual folder was labeled separately, however, since they were kept alphbetically by employee they were all together still. An auditor asked for the entire file, which he meant for them to pull the pendaflex hanging folder which held all of the individual files.

We have avoided that by keeping separate drawers. The I-9s are kept in binders, alphabetically, with current employees in one and former employees in another. If immigration needs to look, they will only get those binders. By the way, I have also heard that if the INS looks at your "personnel" files and finds other deficiencies, they can contact the OSHA, the Labor Board or whichever agency who would oversee that issue and report you.

Margaret Morford · September 2002

Dottie,

How awful for you, but I think very rarely do all those factors happen at the same time. I'd rather have one unusual problem than risk the liability that comes from a lack of confidentiality on all other employee medical files, particularly given the new privacy regulations coming down from Washington!

Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]

keeping some personnel records separate from the original personal file

Comments