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

anamenottaken

Uncertain wrote: »

Even if they obtained the copy by some improper means it doesn't change the content of affect whether or not it should have been written.

Agreed that it doesn't change what was written. But it does say something about how one approaches raising the issue with current employer - and whether any other breach of the DPA may have occurred.

Uncertain

anamenottaken wrote: »

Agreed that it doesn't change what was written. But it does say something about how one approaches raising the issue with current employer - and whether any other breach of the DPA may have occurred.

Very True!

Emmzi

BligBlag wrote: »

But surely the OP's OH will have to declare her condition at some point with a new Employer, whether it be on the application form or once the job is secured, most jobs require you to declare any existing conditions and/or attend a medical - ?!

Most employers I work with require you to declare disabilities, and this does not appear to be one?

I have never been asked to provide a blood sample at a medical. And in fact only one employer has asked me to go for a medical.

And, some employers don't even do a health screening questionnaire.

Based on no evidence at all and gut feel based on what I see in the world of work, chances of having to declare 50/50

woody01

GEEGEE8 wrote: »

No sensitive data has been given?! YES it has.. they have told them of her blood condition.

Of course it hasn't.
The OP's GF is clearly trying to hide a medical condition from a possible employer and that is WRONG! No ifs....buts....maybes.....

Any employer has a duty of care towards it's employees, and as such, is why medical conditions are asked about when applying for work (in any company that is worth working for).

Before i take people on, i insist they take a medical first. This is then relayed back to me whether they are fit enough to do the position.
It's called being responsible. If you cannot understand this then you are at your level right now

If you were an 'EMPLOYER' rather than a employee, you would understand this.

lucylucky

woody01 wrote: »

Of course it hasn't.
The OP's GF is clearly trying to hide a medical condition from a possible employer and that is WRONG! No ifs....buts....maybes..... WRONG, there appears to be no intention to hide anything. That is not the question which is meant to be being discussed.

Any employer has a duty of care towards it's employees, and as such, is why medical conditions are asked about when applying for work (in any company that is worth working for). Many companies do not require full medical including blood testing - does yours? What blood tests are carried out? Would an HIV positive person (for example) not be able to carry out work in your place of employment?

Before i take people on, i insist they take a medical first. This is then relayed back to me whether they are fit enough to do the position.
It's called being responsible. If you cannot understand this then you are at your level right now And the OP's girlfriend is and was fit enough to do the job:cool:

If you were an 'EMPLOYER' rather than a employee, you would understand this. I have been both and have turned down people for jobs after the result of a medical.

As the condition had no relevance on the OP's girlfriend to carry out the work (apparently) then a medical would have no bearing at all in this case.

[Deleted User]

Thanks for all your replies - it's actually a really interesting debate and having digested some of the comments overnight, I can - genuinely - see it from both sides.

Addressing a few of the responses so far:

Firstly, my OH is definitely not trying to 'hide' anything. She notifed her previous employer as soon she made the decision to undergo treatment and also notified other colleagues who she worked closely with. This was obviously very difficult for her and very few people know of her condition.

I appreciate that many will think 'who cares' and - to a certain extent - I agree. Whether she has this condition or not doesn't bother me in the slightest: genuinely, I don't care about it. But at the same time it has had a major psychological impact on her life and she does find it very difficult to open up to others about it.

She isn't trying to hide it from her employer, but at this stage, why should she tell them? She's going for an interview: she hasn't been offered the job yet (and may not be). Surely you would argue she is only hiding it if she doesn't disclose it once she has accepted a job offer? How is it relevant specifically to the fact she is attending an interview and applying for a job, rather than actually undertaking the job itself? I don't see how it is.

In terms of medical disclosures, the job is with a local council and there's no indication that a medical will be required; nor has any of her previous employers (which also include local government) requested disclosure previously. For that matter, none of my previous employers (7) have requested a medical check from me.

LuckyLucky, I appreciate your comments but can you not see that your position is likely to lead you into some form of tribunal? You need to judge people based upon their performance at interview and aptitude for the job. My OH is perfectly good at her work and her condition plays NO PART in it. It's a blood disorder, not a brain disorder. She isn't physically disabled and no special requirements need to be put in place for her. She isn't likely to need time off work as the condition is a slow, degenerative one in which she symptoms are more likely to be seen much later in life...and in her (specific) situation, she is quite unlikely to ever have this affect her physically (long story short, her viral load is unusually low for someone who's been infected for so long - she got it when she was a kid remember - and she's frequently used as a guinea pig by doctors wanting to research why the disease isn't progressing faster). Her condition does not - in any way - impact her ability to work. Are you suggesting that you wouldn't employ her based on your (unjustified) fears?

p.s. Woody, I AM an employer, of 135 people, so please don't lecture me about responsibilities. None of my staff are required to undertake medicals but like all companies of that size, illness, sickness and misfortune occur: you just need to accept it and support your staff, rather than vetting them to create some kind of genetically-supreme workforce. And where do you draw the line on risk? Should I tell one of my sales team that he can't take time off to care for his girlfriend who's currently undergoing treatment for cervical cancer, because he didn't declare it to me to begin with? Or perhaps tell my co-director that he can't leave the office to spend time with his sick and deteriorating parents because he should have foreseen it and notified me? !!!! happens. You just have to deal with it.

Finally, in terms of how she obtained the reference: I believe (though will need to check) that the prospective employer disclosed this to her along with all the information provided by her current employer, on a request from my OH.

You have to remember that this is a condition that affects - estimates suggest - 100,000s of people in the UK alone, many of whom may not be aware that they are a sufferer: as I said before, it's a slowly-progressing disease and most people don't learn about it until they're in their 50s or 60s when their viral load is high enough to manifest itself in physical symptoms. If my OH is negligent for failing to disclose it, I could equally argue that this huge number of individuals are negligent in not testing for the condition before they apply for a job if they have reason to believe they may have been in the 'at risk' category at some point in their life.

lucylucky

bunglejemson either I have misread your posts or you have misread mine. I don't see why or how anything I have done or written could lead you to believe that I would be subject to a tribunal of any sort. I have not stated that your partner's condition impacts on her ability to do the job, I have argued the exact opposite, so some confusion somewhere.

The only time I have asked for people to go through a medical is after they have successfully been selected from an interview process. One person was very reluctant to do so and kept putting it off until we arranged one for her. We discovered that she had a skeletal disorder that would have made it impossible for her to do the tasks required, and no reasonable adjustment could have made this work, therefore the offer of employment was withdrawn. All above board and not an issue. There have been others, for different reasons.

[Deleted User]

lucylucky wrote: »

bunglejemson either I have misread your posts or you have misread mine. I don't see why or how anything I have done or written could lead you to believe that I would be subject to a tribunal of any sort. I have not stated that your partner's condition impacts on her ability to do the job, I have argued the exact opposite, so some confusion somewhere.

The only time I have asked for people to go through a medical is after they have successfully been selected from an interview process. One person was very reluctant to do so and kept putting it off until we arranged one for her. We discovered that she had a skeletal disorder that would have made it impossible for her to do the tasks required, and no reasonable adjustment could have made this work, therefore the offer of employment was withdrawn. All above board and not an issue. There have been others, for different reasons.

It's ok, I think I may has misread yours I thought you were arguing that medical conditions should be disclosed prior to interview.

lucylucky

Deleted_User wrote: »

It's ok, I think I may has misread yours I thought you were arguing that medical conditions should be disclosed prior to interview.

Not at all - glad that is cleared up.:)

Uncertain

woody01 wrote: »

Of course it hasn't.
The OP's GF is clearly trying to hide a medical condition from a possible employer and that is WRONG! No ifs....buts....maybes.....

Either the original company has the legal right to pass this information on or it has not. My firm understanding is that it does not have the right to do so. However I would be happy to be corrected on this point if anybody has specific facts rather than supposition coloured by what they think the law OUGHT to be!

Also I would be interested to know exactly what regulations support your second sentence. Or is this another opinion dressed up as "fact".

Even if you are right on the second point (which I very much doubt) this still does not give anybody else the right to disclose confidential information.

Two wrongs have never made a right.