Right to work

robatwork

yksi wrote: »

It's not really the point - you ask, because you want to know why they want it, and it isn't unreasonable to ask why, so you listen to what they have to say. If they just say they want it because they can, well, stalemate. But they MIGHT just be asking thinking they need it legally when they don't and they might be ok with it once they realise it isn't actually needed.

Even HR people are occasionally human and make mistakes.

Let's say they're mistaken and they don't NEED it but are just spooked by the legislation that states:

"You can be sent to jail for 5 years and pay an unlimited fine if you’re found guilty of employing someone who you knew or had ‘reasonable cause to believe’ did not have the right to work in the UK."

and

You can also be penalised if you employ someone who does not have the right to work and you did not do the correct checks, or you did not do them properly.

If this happens, you might get a ‘referral notice’ to let you know your case is being considered and that you might have to pay a civil penalty (fine) of up to £20,000 for each illegal worker.

As an employer I would be concerned enough to cover all the bases even if a stroppy employee disputed it.

As an employee I wouldn't make it the hill I died upon.

Savvy_Sue

robatwork wrote: »

As an employer I would be concerned enough to cover all the bases even if a stroppy employee disputed it.

As an employee I wouldn't make it the hill I died upon.

I find that an excellent summary of the situation.

Jsacker wrote: »

Personally, and this is my legendary "false hope", I would be interested in how this all ties in with legislation (ie are RTW documents ultimately a legal requirement for the poster here?) and GDPR. Specifically, if there is no legal requirement for the poster to provide RTW then the employer does not need to collect the additional personal information for that specific purpose (which they've conveniently outlined on the email). So, to what extent would refusal of RTW documents constitute the assertion of a statutory right under GDPR (and ultimately an unfair dismissal claim; WITHOUT a "Polkey reduction" )? I genuinely do not know the answer to that, mainly because I don't understand the legislation (I find it so weird that there may exist a way out of proving RTW), but I feel that's one of the "technicality" scenarios you may be hinting at.

I don't know if you're right: I suspect it is one of the many contradictions in this kind of area. For example, we have to carry out DBS checks, but we're not supposed to keep a copy of any check we may receive. All we can do is record that we carried out the check. It always worries me that one day, something will go wrong, and all we'll have is a tick box to say we carried out the check. We'll have no record of what it said.

Similarly, our photocopier actually has a manufacturer's note on it to the effect that it's not to be used to copy copyright materials, or passports, or some other official documents.

But going back to what robatwork quoted:

robatwork wrote: »

Let's say they're mistaken and they don't NEED it but are just spooked by the legislation that states:

"You can be sent to jail for 5 years and pay an unlimited fine if you’re found guilty of employing someone who you knew or had ‘reasonable cause to believe’ did not have the right to work in the UK."

and

You can also be penalised if you employ someone who does not have the right to work and you did not do the correct checks, or you did not do them properly.

This all sounds very straightforward, until you start (as an employer) to think about why you do or don't have reasonable cause to believe that someone has the RTW in the UK.

suppose you have 10 employees. They are a mix of skin tones, and speak English with a range of accents. Some of them consider a language other than English to be their 'first' language. Do you ask those with different accents to prove RTW and leave the rest to it? Or only the non-whites with unusual accents? Either of those, and you're opening yourself to a charge of discrimination.

It is far simpler to ask for proof of RTW from EVERYONE, and to make a note of anyone whose RTW is limited or provisional in any way.

Doshwaster

It's amazing how some people make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

EMployers could choose to only ask some people to provide their ID but they would run the risk of being accused of discrimination so it's just easier for them to ask everyone.

Yes, it's a bit stupid and annoying but so are most things HR do. At least checking passports keeps them busy. It's when HR get bored and start thinking up new schemes that you need to start worrying.

General_Grant

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

. . .. For example, we have to carry out DBS checks, but we're not supposed to keep a copy of any check we may receive. All we can do is record that we carried out the check. It always worries me that one day, something will go wrong, and all we'll have is a tick box to say we carried out the check. We'll have no record of what it said.

. . .

Actually you should keep a note of the reference number of the certificate and who saw it and agreed the person could (continue to) be employed. You don't, as you have noted, keep a record of what it records, even that it has no recorded incidents.