Archive for the ‘Global Screening’ Category

Compliance Update – Law Finally Outlaws ‘Back Door’ Criminal Records

March 12, 2015 Leave a comment

litigation%20As of March 10, 2015 United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice finally passed a law formally outlawing employers and third-parties from carrying out ‘back-door’ criminal record checks on candidates in the United Kingdom. Violators could face criminal charges to include unlimited fines. Buyers of background screening services need to ensure screening providers are acquiring their criminal information in accordance with local legal provisions or could face criminal as well as civil sanctions by local authorities.

For years some third-party background screening providers as well as employers both within the UK and outside have tried to bypass a well-established lawful process for vetting criminal records for employment as well as other nefarious purposes in the UK whether by demanding a potential employee to use their rights under the DPA to see criminal information held about them (also known as ‘Enforced Subject Access’) or by other back-door routes of criminal court records.

Aletheia Consulting Group is the leading Global Background Check Consulting firm. We focus solely on providing industry leading independent third-party best practice advice to global organizations no matter where in the world your organization may operate from. Helping you make the right decisions.


How to establish the reliability of International Background Check data

February 27, 2012 Leave a comment

Today I’d like to share a recent discussion that has been taking place the last few weeks on our LinkedIn Forum, the International Background Screening Forum that I think our readers will find resourceful.

The discussion provides an interesting primer and an insight into the rather fragmented nature of the global background check market and the challenges faced by screening companies outside of their geographic location (country of domicile) that look to source U.S. or overseas based clients international background check research either through direct to source i.e. a government agency abroad or to third-parties whether they are global wholesale providers or even in-country providers.

In summary a rather thought provoking statement and question was made that not all countries are equal when it comes to the reliability and accuracy of records around the globe. It was also  expressed that clients (multinational employers) are paying a premium for international searches and that there is a growing concern from a US based background screening company’s point of view as to how one should go about evaluating the reliability and accuracy of such results on a country basis. From a practical point of view it is believed that there might be countries that may not be worth performing a records search because… “there are no records to search”, or “70% of the people in a country can pay officials to lose the record”, or “50% of the records become “nonexistent” for political or religious reasons,” etc.

These are all very valid questions, (1) what is the reliability / accuracy and (2) if based on available information, local records might not necessarily provide at least a certain level of accuracy should an organization even attempt such research? As a global advisory firm specializing in this area we receive these types of questions more often than you would think. We’ll discuss both of these points.

How to Establish Reliability / Accuracy in International Background Check results

In many respects even after 12 years of specializing in the global background check market many would agree that it is still very much considered “The Wild West” and at its emerging stage due to the fragmented nature of differing laws, availability and access to local records and data required to undertake a legitimate check, costs, and most importantly differing points of view on what is legally permissible versus folks that just want to turn a quick buck for less than ethical work product. In the end the latter has done more harm than good but it’s getting better through education and the effects of increased global trade (increased demand) but also increased enforcement action of those that flagrantly violate compliance and personal privacy.

Unfortunately there is no public available resource that details by country each of these aspects of background screening on a country basis, at least at this time. This type of information is generally closely held by companies that actually specialize in this area of the market and many may feel that it is considered part of the “secret sauce” that differentiates them from their competitors (particularly global specialists). Aletheia Consulting has in fact conducted such research on a number of geographies around the globe.

With that in mind we will discuss the guiding principles we apply when working with our CRA (background screening) clients no matter whether they may be a US based or overseas based provider (ie. a screening provider located in Bangladesh as an example) looking to expand their geographic footprint and design their international background check product portfolio.

We carefully examine each local data source (i.e. criminal records, credit, etc..) by country and by product type with the following 8 specific questions in mind:

  1. Existence of information in target country? (locate possible sources of the data)
  2. How is information maintained?
  3. Reliability and credibility of information? (whether held directly by gov agency but also how credible the third party that may be in conducting the search on the customers behalf)
  4. Legality of using consumer information for employment purposes? (can it even be used for employment purposes?, if so
  5. If based on answers related to No. 4 that it is legally permissible for employment – how can research be accomplished? Direct to source or through a third-party?)
  6. What is required in order to obtain the information?
  7. Timeliness of delivery?
  8. Affordable cost of information?

Questions 1-5 can then be applied to a Risk Matrix and conclusions drawn as to the quality and credibility.

This of course assumes one also factors in the cultural and environmental factors involving a country’s level of corruption (i.e. the practice of paying bribes in order to get out of being arrested or to pay off a claimant prior to court in order to avoid a trial which is actually a common practice in some countries).

A country’s level of corruption and actual fundamental issues around the quality of source data will always be potential factors in international background investigations that one should consider but should never be a deterrent or an excuse for not conducting an adequate level due diligence on a potential non-US or local employee, contractor, or trading partner. Remember many countries including the U.S. have enacted various anti-corruption/bribery and terrorism statutes (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) as well as various industry specific guidelines (US Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations) such as within the financial services, IT, healthcare, and many other industries that require a reasonable/responsible level of due diligence be applied when making a business decision.

What to expect from your local or global background check provider

When working through a 3rd party (in-country partner or even one of the “wholesale international providers”) aside from the usual production guidance i.e. what they require from you to undertake the search and what to expect in return I recommend you require them to demonstrate a sufficient working knowledge of the geographies they claim to be able to support. This needs to be supported by their willingness to educate you and or provide sufficient guidance for you to be able to communicate the local cultural and legal provisions governing access and use of the data to your clients or even candidates. You should then have this information cross referenced and verified independent and directly with the source agency and the relevant privacy commission (if applicable).

In the end there must be transparency with your overseas background check providers. If not than you or your organization may be placed in a risky situation of possibly violating an applicant’s personal privacy rights or even worse an organization failing to be able to demonstrate that they applied the necessary level of due diligence in their background screening process.

I am not a firm believer in “blind faith” or “blind trust” as someone mentioned in the discussion about relying on their provider without verifying the facts.  This is an unwise practice and creates significant risk for you and your client. Our clients come to us for expert advice and if we don’t know the answer to their question than we should know how to derive the right (accurate/truthful) answer or tell them we simply don’t know.

Some folk’s spoke of records not being available in certain geographies and that is absolutely accurate. In fact one of my most famous recommendations to clients is that “any firm that purports to offer and deliver criminal records for employment purposes from every country on the planet, don’t walk away, run away!” This simply isn’t legally permissible in a multitude of countries and is an outright criminal offense. As a provider of international background screening services however it is our job to be able to speak to both the local environment as well as our experience to be able to offer best practice advice for our clients in order to address and in some cases offer next best available options to consider.

In conclusion, just because criminal records in a country may be paperwork intensive, expensive, take an extremely long time to accomplish, or worst case scenario not very accurate due to the reasons discussed today as long as the organization has applied that reasonable level of due diligence..meaning that if it is legally permitted and available for employment the organization should have the check done by a responsible provider. The question then may become what source and as long as you’ve applied the guidelines we discussed above during the sourcing and selection process you should be okay. If as a provider you don’t have the in-house expertise of the local geographies than we believe you have one of two options (1) spend the time to research the various geographies on your own (although it will be a very long, painful, and expensive process), or (2) hire or partner with local and or global subject matter expert that has already done the leg work and who is able and willing to be your subject matter specialist.

International Background Check Market Outlook

All and all the international background check market even with its rather interesting challenges continues to grow and further develop in leaps and bounds nearly by the month. I am a firm believer that through continued education of our buyers, providers, applying best practice concepts, and striving to do the right thing as a business owner and as an industry will many of these challenges have less of an impact on the emerging international background check market.

For more information about Aletheia Consulting Group’s advisory services in international background screening please feel free to visit our website or email us at .

Global background screening, an integral part of risk management

January 19, 2012 Leave a comment

With increasing connectivity, there is an advent of a truly global workforce, multinational operations has led to an exponential increase in the risks associated with candidate recruiting and contract and or contingent workforce.

Human capital is increasingly being acknowledged as the most important investment for any company. Finding the right talent in the right job at the right time is an enormous challenge that global HR teams are facing in today’s current hiring scenario.

In all of this, in the more recent times, individuals from corporations involved in various crimes as well as increased legal scrutiny related to anti corruption has led to increased realization about the value for background screening all employees, contractors, and vendors at all levels.

Reported incidences of corruption, doing business with vendors listed on sanction and debarred parties lists in the petroleum  sector, unauthorized access to sensitive customer information in financial services sector, instances of staff in educational institutions involved in exploitation cases — all have led to growing awareness of the need for background screening of employees as well as vendor / contract staff.

The reality is that an organization’s reputation is at stake should they hire someone or do business with an entity that has a questionable background. Brand equity and value can be adversely impacted if it is known that an organization didn’t exercise a reasonable level of due diligence before recruiting a certain individual or decided to do business with a trading partner who had a questionable background. Thus, lack of background screening or even not performing best practice type checks depending on the circumstance on current or potential employees and or trading partners is something that could come back to haunt any organization — through reduced business, inability to retain better employees and adverse impact on its public image.

If that wasn’t enough, not only can it be rather embarrassing for an organization that does not excise due care in vetting their employees, contract staff or trading partners such organizations can also be exposed to enforcement action by government authorities for not conducting what may be considered a reasonable level of due diligence or have not applied “due care” as may be required by new and existing anti-corruption laws such as the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Sarbanes Oxley, Patriot Act, and US. Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations (FSGO) and many other similar industry and or country specific laws like the UK’s Bribery Act.

The FSGO requires organizational implementation of compliance standards and procedures that are “reasonably capable” of reducing the prospect of criminal conduct by employees, contractors, and business partners. In fact, according to FSGO, due care must be made in avoiding passing on to individuals whom an organization knew, or should have known, had a propensity to engage in illegal activities.

What is considered adequate due diligence or due care according to many of the above mentioned legal provisions is beyond the scope of this article and will be discussed in a later article.

Global Background Screening Industry Overview

Although there has always been some demand for background checks abroad, the initial driving force for international or global background screening was first introduced about ten years ago. This was triggered by the post 9/11 attacks. With a number of Fortune 1000 companies going global — either through setting up their own offices or outsourced work abroad, it was expected that their overseas based entities (mainly IT and BPO companies) followed processes that were an integral part to their recruitment policies. (Incidentally, recent studies show more than 90 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have a formal policy of background screening their employees). This led to background screening of their employees as well as their outsourced counterparts.

The concept of global background screening is no longer limited to just IT or the financial services segments. A growing number of organizations in the manufacturing, maritime, defense, pharmaceutical, petroleum, hospitality, health care, retail, travel, telecom, educational institutions and entertainment industries are adopting international background screening practices.

Today’s multinational companies (MNC) face a growing challenge in managing the collection, use, processing and transfer of mass amounts of personally identifiable information globally, especially in light of the myriad of data protection (privacy) laws that exist today. Effective management of global talent management, data privacy, and security involves a multi-disciplinary approach involving legislation, technology, and business processes in order to fully understand and address data protection and personal privacy issues on a global basis. It also requires recognition that effective management is a process that must include solutions for responding to constant changes in both internal and external factors effecting human resource data use especially when it involves screening candidates around the world.

The actual overseas background screening process involves carrying out various different types of checks based on a number of factors such as type of hire (entry, mid, professional, executive), regulated position, level of risk the individual position poses to the organization, and finally, the country at hand to name a few.  Any misrepresentation in the below listed checks should be reported as a discrepancy. The discrepancy rate is the percentage of misrepresentations/fraudulent/adverse information that a comprehensive background screening procedure should uncover during the verification process.

  • Identity check – confirms candidate is who they say they are
  • Right to work check – confirms candidate is authorized to work in a given country
  • Address verification – confirms candidate’s current residency
  • Education – confirms academic credentials
  • Employment – confirms claimed work history
  • Reference check – confirms professional reputation
  • Professional credential verification – confirms professional certifications
  • Criminal records history – determine if candidate has a propensity to engage in illegal activities
  • Regulatory and Compliance / Sanctions Search – determine if candidate has been sanctioned by relevant regulatory authorities, has been the subject of other enforcement actions, or identified as a possible politically exposed person
  • Adverse media – news articles that contain derogatory information the candidate
  • Conflict of interest – evaluate if candidate may be involved in multiple interests
  • Drug Testing – determination if candidate has a propensity to abuse illicit drugs
  • Trading Partner / Vendor Screening – determine if vendor is legitimate and of good standing

It is critically important that ALL checks are initiated only after an authorization in writing by the concerned candidate is obtained.

A “credible” international background screening company will ensure that the process goes only through the legal / legitimate route of obtaining records or verifications. This may imply relatively later verification compared to some agencies who provide “quick,” “easy,” “cheap” criminal record results from every country on the planet but through processes which may not be able to stand the scrutiny of law! This was most recently highlighted in a case involving a company who purported to provide court record checks from a country where it is well know that court records are not the best practice source for employment purposes. The end result was a series of missed criminal records that should have been reported, the loss of a screening company’s entire clientele, and finally an ongoing litigation involving suspected fraud and misrepresentation.

While more and more screening companies offer international or global service, the best way of managing background checks at least internationally is to ensure that international background checks are done by organizations that actually specialize in this area. This assumes the provider is able to demonstrate they have more than just a passing knowledge of available products. In fact specialized providers should be able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the local data sources, a clear understanding of the specific geographic and search requirements, the legal environment (laws related to data/record access rights, personal privacy, relevant employment and human rights laws), and who are able to offer specific answers to questions related to best practice screening in the given country. A specialized global background screening organization would not ordinarily compromise its reputation by not following local compliance requirements.

Way forward
Data shows that individuals with a questionable background tend to join organizations that do not conduct background screening of its employees or contract/vendor staff.

Hence, when these organizations do start conducting background screening, they find many discrepancies (number of employees who have misrepresented facts on their resumes or have a criminal background) and/or go through huge attrition (as employees who have misrepresented facts or have negative background prefer to leave than be found out) when they announce background screening.

This is validation of how background screening becomes a deterrent against employees or prospective employees or even vendors misrepresenting facts on their resumes or employment applications. Thus, background screening proves to be a good insurance against risk to reputation related to bad hires as well as trading partners!

The international or global background screening industry is still in its emerging phase. There are many organizations/institutions overseas who, as a policy, do not share information with third parties for verification purposes. For some organizations and institutions which do not mind sharing information, it can be a longer process as databases are manually maintained and verification process involves going through very old data maintained physically.

Employment checks that can be conducted at the click of a button in the US have to be conducted through phone calls, faxes, or emails or site visits in India.

Moreover, many organizations abroad do not maintain databases or records for temporary employees, which lead to unavailability of such crucial information.

Criminal background information that is available through various online databases and court records in the US are not comparable with what is available in other geographies. In many countries, such information needs to be sought at the central repository level and even locally in the concerned jurisdictions.

Collaborative online database solutions involving all parties concerned — the candidate, the recruiter, the verifier, the verifying authorities, etc. — will help in developing a ‘pre-qualified and pre-checked’ ready-to-hire talent pool — which is the need of the hour in the present economic scenario.

Aletheia Consulting Group provides multinational companies best in class International Background Check Provider Vendor Evaluation and Audits. If you would like to learn more about our Services for Multinational Employers please feel free to contact us at

International personal privacy compliance for global staffing directors

January 17, 2012 Leave a comment

The responsibilities and obligations of employers under European Data Protection Directives and the UK Data Protection Act. Terry Corley, Aletheia Consulting Group, reviews the issues that a Director of Human Resources for a multinational organization can expect to face in the Global marketplace.

Susan Lane is a newly appointed Staffing Director at a large professional services firm, Abacus Accounting, Inc (ABACUS) based in the United States. ABACUS also maintains offices in over 50 countries, including Asia, Europe and Latin America. Today, the majority of all HR-related activities are maintained by ABACUS’s corporate headquarters in the US.

In addition to requiring her to assume her daily human resources responsibilities, the Vice President of Human Resources tasked Ann to determine if ABACUS is compliant with data privacy (data protection) requirements in relation to how they handle employee data abroad. There was concern in Management that they might be at risk of liability for non-compliance. They were also conscious that the company had not given sufficient consideration to many of the emerging international data privacy issues in the past and that a number of its normal processes and policies may have to change as a result. The Vice President therefore asked Ann to report to the Board with her recommendations.

ABACUS recruits new candidate
As ABACUS’s Finance Director for European operations, based in London, recently accepted a position with another firm, Ann’s first major task was to oversee the recruitment of a replacement. At the same time, management took the view that it could also improve the level of customer service for select Asia Pacific locations it provides and thus asked Human Resources to recruit three new client services representatives for their Singapore and India offices.

To find a new Finance Director, Ann decided to use the services of an executive search firm as well as the staffing firm normally used by ABACUS to fill vacancies. She then further instructs both agencies to locate qualified candidates from the countries for which the positions will be filled.

US executive search firms recruiting from abroad
The very nature of the efforts of an executive search firm, head-hunter or staffing firm means that personal information is inevitably collected without an individual’s knowledge or consent, at least during the initial stages of recruitment. It may, however, be a little challenging when a US-based employer plans to employ local nationals in a foreign country when the employer may not be familiar with the differences in employment and privacy legislation prevalent in a given country. Fortunately, this is currently of little concern for Ann, at least until the recruiter provides her with the names of candidates that meet ABACUS’s initial recruitment requirements.

Complying with local data processing guidelines
It is at this point that lane would normally begin processing personal information about a US-based candidate. However, after talking with corporate counsel and the company’s Chief Privacy Officer, she learns that based on the UK’s Employment Practices Data Protection Code it is better if she is provided with applicant information in a manner that doesn’t constitute the processing of ‘data’. She will otherwise be obligated to notify the candidate that she is processing their personal data ‘as soon as practicable’ after receiving information from the search firm.

Company adequacy determination
Transferring personal data back to the US at this point would also require ABACUS to determine if the company meets adequacy protection requirements as dictated by the European Union Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). These laws limit the transfer of human resource data from the EU to third countries, such as the US, unless the third country or entity is found to provide an adequate level of protection. Accordingly, any employer such as ABACUS processing applicant data in the EU must first revise its HR data practices to the Directive and member state laws while the data is still in the EU.

These laws impose substantial requirements on the collection, transfer, processing and use of virtually all employee data. Member states such as the United Kingdom have further enacted laws such the UK Data Protection Act 1998 to implement the Directive that also apply to employee and consumer personal information.

In the short term, Ann determined that until ABACUS is capable of meeting adequacy requirements, she should not request personal information to be sent to her from the UK electronically back in the US. This thereby reduces the risk of it constituting ‘personal data’, although it is unlikely that a paper-based record of an executive recruiter’s notes would be caught by the Directives or the DPA due to the restrictive definition of ‘relevant filing system’. If the suggested names are not considered suitable then Ann will immediately destroy the information.

Legal basis for transfers
When transferring employee data from the EU to third countries such as the US, companies such as ABACUS are required to identify and implement a legal basis for such transfers. Employers operating in the EU that collect or process personal information in the EU without adhering to member state laws or that transfer personal information from the EU to a country without adequate protection or a relevant exception may incur substantial legal liability.

A growing challenge
Organizations are facing a growing challenge in managing the collection, use, processing and transfer of mass amounts of HR personal information, especially in light of the myriad of international personal privacy laws that exist today as well as emerging technologies designed to manage HR data in a global environment.

Effective management of overseas data privacy, HR policies related to international applicants, and security involves a multi-disciplinary approach involving policy development, legislation, technology and business processes in order to fully understand data protection and privacy issues. It also requires recognition that effective HR data management is a process that must include a comprehensive Human Resource, Data Privacy Management Plan for responding to constant changes in both internal and external factors effecting global employee data use in multinational organizations.

Background Screening Overseas Is Limited

January 13, 2012 2 comments

The following article is from Workplace Management and explores the landscape of background screening overseas. More and more screening companies that have popped up over the last decade are now marketing their services for international background screening from nearly every country on the planet, but employers should be aware of the information they can legally generate is likely to be more limited.

International background screeningBackground Screening Overseas Is Limited

‘What works in the United States doesn’t work abroad. … In Europe, what’s private stays private,’ an attorney says.
By Fay Hansen
The background screening industry in the United States is a relatively unregulated multibillion-dollar sector that has no comparable foreign counterpart. U.S.-based employers with screening policies designed to meet their domestic needs and the U.S. legal framework face a completely different reality when they move abroad. Particularly in the European Union and increasingly across the developing world, a job applicant’s right to privacy trumps an employer’s right to collect information about a potential employee. ”What works in the United States doesn’t work abroad,” says Andrew Boling, partner at Baker & McKenzie in Chicago. “You have to assume that your screening practices will be restricted. And in the European Union, background screening is much more limited, even for an applicant who is applying for a job in the United States. Criminal background checks are limited if they are allowed at all. Credit checks are even more restricted and seldom done, with very limited exceptions.”

In many overseas locations, employers are not plagued by the same levels of employee theft and fraud and workplace violence that prompt high levels of screening in the United States. “Anecdotally, if you look at issues like workplace violence, the incidence is much lower in Europe,” Boling says. In addition, sharp differences in legal liabilities diminish the need for screening. “The negligent hiring concept is a very U.S.-centric risk,” Boling says, “so screening issues abroad are not as grave as in the United States.”

“What works in the United States doesn’t work abroad. … In Europe, what’s private stays private.”
—Andrew Boling, partner,
Baker & McKenzie, Chicago

The severe limitations placed on screening in other countries arise from a fundamental appreciation for and deference to individual privacy rights. “Outside of the United States, individual privacy rights enjoy the same protections that we give to our First Amendment rights,” Boling says. “In Europe, what’s private stays private.” In France, for example, credit checks generally are not permissible even if a job applicant consents.

The levels of consumer debt are also generally lower outside the U.S., and personal bankruptcy is much more uncommon, so credit checks commonly generate a lower number of negative hits in the countries where they are permissible. Non-U.S. employers also take a different approach to the financial status of job applicants. “How you manage your personal finances is considered to be irrelevant to how you qualify for or perform on a job,” Boling says.

U.S. employers operating abroad often do the maximum amount of screening allowed by law, but they are likely to encounter greater limitations going forward, Boling notes. Although laws concerning background screening are still emerging in the developing world, he sees a trend toward adopting the more restrictive approach to screening that is common in Europe rather than the more unregulated U.S. approach.

“In Asia, there is embryonic legislation that is following the European model, but is somewhat less restrictive,” he says. China’s 2008 workforce legislation, for example, embraced the European model of employment rights. U.S.-based screening companies are now marketing their services outside the United States, but employers should be aware that the information they can legally generate is likely to be more limited.

Workforce Management, February 16, 2009, p. 37

Littler Unveils Eight Challenges for Global Employers: Dangerous Workplaces and Social Media Among Greatest Threats

January 5, 2012 Leave a comment

PRWEB.COM Newswire

San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) January 04, 2012

Littler Mendelson, P.C. (Littler), the nation’s largest employment and labor law firm representing management, has pinpointed eight major global employment trends facing international companies for 2012 and beyond.

“From dangerous workplaces to social media to whistleblowing, the global employment trends we are seeing are a clear reflection of the social and economic times in which we are living,” said Garry Mathiason, chairman of the board at Littler. “The change in social policy based on a transformed global economy is driving an evolution in the work we do for clients. These trends are an important part of the future of global employment law.”

The eight major and emerging trends, as well as a brief video of Garry Mathiason discussing these trends at Littler’s Global Employer Institute in Washington, D.C., are below.

1. Dangerous Workplaces – Employees are accepting assignments that take them to unsafe places in the world. These assignments are often shorter term, but increasing in frequency. Compliance recommendations include recognizing by country and assignment the continuum of threats, and establishing centralized policies and multi-disciplinary teams to respond.

2. Social Media and Global Privacy – The line between one’s work life and private life has been permanently blurred by technology. Laws permitting background checks using social media are changing the landscape of employment law and differ substantially between countries. Employers need vetted global privacy policies that also recognize the inevitability that personal smart phones and tablets will increasingly be used in business. Employers also need to consider how they will retrieve business information after an employee leaves as this information can be housed in a social media channel. For example, decide whether LinkedIn profiles are the property of an individual employee’s company.

3. Whistleblowing and Overcoming Corruption are a Business Priority – Worldwide governments are providing incentives for whistleblowers and promoting a business culture that embraces and protects whistleblowers. Whistleblowers have emerged as ethical heroes and this new culture is embodied in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act and a recent push in Europe to strengthen whistleblower protections.

4. The New Face of Discrimination – New trends in discrimination include migrant and social origin discrimination globally. Employers also need to be aware of discrimination liability related to economic adversity and discrimination against the unemployed. Within the U.S., states are starting to adopt statutes protective of the unemployed and the EEOC has flagged the potential link between current civil rights laws and the disparate impact of unemployment discrimination. Outside of the U.S., unemployment discrimination may be considered a form of social origin discrimination.

5. Third Party Funding of Litigation – Whistleblowers are proving to be a new market in which hedge funds are investing. Employers should monitor institutional funding entitles for divisions supporting litigation funding—and express opinions. Employers should also consider this developing trend when assessing ROI on compliance programs.

6. Global Mobility – Related to the arbitration trend below, employment contracts are critical to global mobility. A confluence of demographic trends, including the fact that some countries have as high as 70 percent expatriates or migrants in their workforce, and the increasing popularity of short-term assignments require employers to consider a number of issues. Those issues could range from tax issues in advance of an overseas assignment to bringing an employee to his other home country before termination.

7. Rise of the Contingent Workforce Worldwide – This trend is an economic certainty and presents multiple employment law compliance issues ranging from joint employer liability to compliance with globally different wage and benefit statutes. Employers should identify their contingent workers including independent contractors, who are under classification scrutiny by revenue-hungry taxing authorities worldwide. Expanding compliance systems to encompass the growing contingent workforce is essential.

8. Global Arbitration and the Rise of Soft Law – Employment arbitration agreements have been a key topic before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 and 2011. International enforcement of arbitration agreements is on the rise but legal requirements differ. Increasingly, HR standards are being harmonized worldwide through framework agreements and conventions. This “soft law” approach to regulations represents multiple employment law challenges at the same time it promotes greater uniformity of working conditions and global management.

Additional global employment trends addressed at the Institute included panels on the globalization of workplace bullying laws, executive compensation regulations in the European Union versus the U.S., the increasing role of employment and labor law in Africa and emerging employment law and issues in China. Attorneys from Littler and TransAsia, a Littler-affiliated law firm located in China, participated with a distinguished panel of speakers including Chinese Government Official, Zhang Shicheng, Deputy Director-General, Legislative Committee, PRC’s National People’s Congress.

About Littler Mendelson

With over 850 attorneys and 55 offices, Littler Mendelson is the largest U.S.-based law firm exclusively devoted to representing management in employment and labor law matters. As the only U.S. member of the Ius Laboris global alliance, Littler has extensive resources to address the needs of multi-national clients, from navigating international employment laws and labor relations issues to applying corporate policies worldwide. Established in 1942, the firm has litigated, mediated and negotiated some of the most influential employment law cases and labor contracts on record. For more information, visit


Read the full story at

South African Police Clearance Certificate obtained through corruption

November 30, 2011 Leave a comment

Former South African police constable was recently found guilty of corruption for selling “clean” police clearance certificates. Through various South African media sources, a former police constable was fined R10,000 or six months in prison for corruption by the Bellville Specialized Commercial Crime Court this past Monday.

Thanduxolo Mbeke, 31, was sentenced to an additional two years in jail. According to court records, Mbeke accepted a R1500 bribe for a police clearance certificate. He subsequently pleaded guilty.

In November of last year, the Western Cape directorate for public prosecutions authorized a sting operation after Mbeke requested R2000 from bus owner Moosa Moolla.

Moolla reported Mbeke immediately to the Cape Town Central vehicle identification section (VIS), which assisted in the arrest.

A month later, Moolla returned to the VIS and gave Mbeke the money who accepted it and immediately issued a “clean” police clearance certificate without actually checking Moolla’s records.

Conclusion: this recent story exemplifies the need for global and transnational organizations to ensure that screening providers of international or global background screening services comply with required Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Anti-Bribery compliance requirements. For assistance in evaluating such risk please feel free to contact us.

%d bloggers like this: