Current employer sharing personal data with prospective employer - what to do?

Weirdlittleman

Deleted_User wrote: »

WLM, by your logic she ought to avoid all contact with every other human being on the planet? I mean, heaven forbid any of the 100,000s of sufferers in the UK actually get a job that involves them working with other people?

The risk of transmission is minimal and requires blood-on-blood contact. As a typically ignorant person, you will realise that if she cuts herself, the person treating her would also need to have an exposed wound and even then it is highly unlikely transmission would occur.

Just taking your points head-on, would you be so aggressive if you read my previous comment and saw that this wasn't 'just a reference', but a question specifically about her attendance record (which is good)? If the question was 'does the applicant have any medical issues' then fair enough, but the question was 'what was her attendance like?'. It was fine. 4 days off in the whole year, and they were not related to her treatment.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am simply saying the new employer has a right to know as they have a duty of care to there other staffmembers.

I would expect in the unlikely event of an incident someone in your wifes office knowing and being able to take appropiate action to prevent any cross infection (gloves first).

You say it is a minor risk and yes it is but how would you react if you transmitted the disease from a bleeding colleague and later found out they had withheld this information as it was minor risk.

No one is asking her to be marked out with a badge or that, simply saying it isnt unreasonable to expect her to tell her employer about it and ensure that the risk is minimised as much as possible.

[Deleted User]

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am simply saying the new employer has a right to know as they have a duty of care to there other staffmembers.

I would expect in the unlikely event of an incident someone in your wifes office knowing and being able to take appropiate action to prevent any cross infection (gloves first).

You say it is a minor risk and yes it is but how would you react if you transmitted the disease from a bleeding colleague and later found out they had withheld this information as it was minor risk.

No one is asking her to be marked out with a badge or that, simply saying it isnt unreasonable to expect her to tell her employer about it and ensure that the risk is minimised as much as possible.

You don't seem to understand the size of the risk. Even if my OH was gushing blood all over the place, it requires the other person to have an open wound so that her contaminated blood can enter their bloodstream.

You're just making yourself sound like an ignorant bigot.

[Deleted User]

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am simply saying the new employer has a right to know

...and just to follow this up. They do not have a right to know. You may think they have a moral requirement to know, but they certainly don't have a legal one.

That's the issue here. I'm looking for advice on how to handle this and a suitable next step. If her employer is going to dish out sordid private details to future prospective employers, how can we stop her without aggravating her further?

Weirdlittleman

Deleted_User wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the size of the risk. Even if my OH was gushing blood all over the place, it requires the other person to have an open wound so that her contaminated blood can enter their bloodstream.

You're just making yourself sound like an ignorant bigot.

No I am not.

You yourself concede a risk exists - no matter how small - yet your OH is making this risk larger than it has to be by trying to withhold the information.

With the utmost respect to you it has been shown that people can be infected by trivial incidents and whilst it is rare I somehow doubt the person being infected in these cases will laugh it off as it was so minor anyway.

We clearly arent going to agree but my stance is that the employer has not broken any legislation and that your OH is being irresponsible in not planning to inform her new employer.

MrsManda

Surely the point of the originial post was whether the employer was entitled to tell anyone on a reference that an employee had a specific condition and the answer to that is no. Whether anyone thinks a person is morally required to provide that kind of information or not is irrelevant. Whether a person chooses to declare a medical condition is up to the person who has the condition, not to anyone else.
Therefore the employer was wrong to disclose this information.

Some links:
Declaring a disability

Link to a previous thread about disclosure

[Deleted User]

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

No I am not.

You yourself concede a risk exists - no matter how small - yet your OH is making this risk larger than it has to be by trying to withhold the information.

With the utmost respect to you it has been shown that people can be infected by trivial incidents and whilst it is rare I somehow doubt the person being infected in these cases will laugh it off as it was so minor anyway.

We clearly arent going to agree but my stance is that the employer has not broken any legislation and that your OH is being irresponsible in not planning to inform her new employer.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. I've already said - as has everybody else - that the employer HAS broken legislation: it's called the Data Protection Act. If you bothered reading the link I posted you will see that it's 100% crystal clear that what she has done is in breach of the provisions protecting personal medical data.

You can disagree all you like, but you are categorically wrong and won't accept it.

My original post wasn't to argue, but to ask advice as to what they should do about it. My OH is caught between a rock and a hard place. If she complains, she's less likely to get a favourable reference in future. But if she doesn't, similar statements will follow.

[Deleted User]

MrsManda wrote: »

Surely the point of the originial post was whether the employer was entitled to tell anyone on a reference that an employee had a specific condition and the answer to that is no. Whether anyone thinks a person is morally required to provide that kind of information or not is irrelevant. Whether a person chooses to declare a medical condition is up to the person who has the condition, not to anyone else.
Therefore the employer was wrong to disclose this information.

Some links:
Declaring a disability

EXACTLY! It's a shame that others don't agree.

Weirdlittleman

MrsManda wrote: »

Surely the point of the originial post was whether the employer was entitled to tell anyone on a reference that an employee had a specific condition and the answer to that is no. Whether anyone thinks a person is morally required to provide that kind of information or not is irrelevant. Whether a person chooses to declare a medical condition is up to the person who has the condition, not to anyone else.
Therefore the employer was wrong to disclose this information.

Some links:
Declaring a disability

The employer didnt actually specify a condition though. Furthermore it could be argued by asking for a reference the employee consented to disclosure of information.

I don't think this thread will find an agreement, whilst the employer may not have acted as best they could I dont think if it came to a court or commisioner they would be found to have acted in a manner contrary to law.

People clearly need to distinguish between the law and guidance when dishing out advice.

Zazen999

Has she asked the person who gave the reference why they were so indepth with the information?

I think she should raise a grievance and seek an assurance that, having broached privacy laws, they restrict their references and not give information that is private as this was surrendered by your OH rather than being a legal necessity to provide.

However I would seek the legal guidance on this, speak to the union, speak to ACAS and get someone legal to check the grievance before you submit it.

And I would put certain users on ignore. Life's too short.

[Deleted User]

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

The employer didnt actually specify a condition though. Furthermore it could be argued by asking for a reference the employee consented to disclosure of information.

I don't think this thread will find an agreement, whilst the employer may not have acted as best they could I dont think if it came to a court or commisioner they would be found to have acted in a manner contrary to law.

People clearly need to distinguish between the law and guidance when dishing out advice.

!!!!!!! My girlfriend didn't ask the employer for a reference. The prospective employer did. And this wasn't disclosed in the process of providing a reference, but in response to the specific question 'What was XXXX's attendance like?' on a form.

Consider the following:

"Please comment as to Weirdlittleman's skills for the job:

Weirdlittleman is an excellent candidate for the job. He is hardworking, diligent and always puts a lot of effort in. He also suffers from extreme dandruff and has horrible bad breath, but I understand he sought treatment for that last year, though this didn't impact his ability to do his job in any way"

a) it's not relevant
b) the question didn't ask about his health
c) it's personal information

Just WHAT is your issue?