A hefty title for a hefty topic. Because information that can be freely obtained on the worldwide web should not be freely used in a job application process. Not even if that information comes from a LinkedIn profile and not even in corona times, when digital job applications will take place even more than usual. In this post, we discuss the ground rules surrounding the screening of an applicant and, more importantly, the options you do have as an employer.
The term "screening" may sound very heavy, but you should not see it that way. Screening is any form of checking the applicant's details. This may involve simply finding the applicant via Google or checking references. Screening can also go further, for example by investigating an applicant's medical conditions or criminal record.
Screening can have a major impact on the applicant's privacy, which is why it is permitted only under strict conditions. These are:
There is a legitimate interest;
screening is necessary;
data will be used only for the necessary purpose;
the data obtained serve the purpose;
there is adequate security of the data obtained;
If necessary, a DPIA has preceded;
information requirements are met and
the retention period is in order.
Therefore, not every screening within one company can be the same. The screening required to assess the suitability of the candidate for the position of finance director is different from the screening required for the prospective educational employee. Do not assume that all screening is permitted if consent is obtained; an applicant will usually not give his or her free consent, but will often consent out of fear of refusal. As a result, explicit consent is no longer an issue.
While most of the requirements for the privacy professional are self-explanatory, further attention to the duty to disclose is desirable. After all, when is the duty to disclose actually met? We recommend that you draw up an application guideline or at least expand the privacy statement with a paragraph in which you pay attention to the screening of the applicant. This should include at least the following:
Who are you?
What information do you collect from the applicant?
For what purpose are you collecting the data?
What do you expect from the applicant? For example, if you do not want the applicant to send a photo or the citizen service number, you can state that in this space. If you want to offer the choice to submit a video application, but it is not required, you can also mention this in this place.
What should the applicant expect from you? How far does the screening extend? What data will you attempt to collect through what source? How will the applicant receive these results and, equally important, in what way may the applicant respond to the results received?
The latter in particular, being allowed to respond to received results, is very important. After all, you may have found the information of someone with a similar name? Or have questionable past events surfaced, but someone has demonstrably improved his or her life. This should be part of the screening process piece by piece.
When an HR officer is asked if an Internet search for a candidate is conducted prior to a job application, in almost all cases this will be confirmed. While in virtually no case will the organization have announced in advance that this will happen. Ignorance is often the culprit, for surely the candidate himself has posted this information on the Internet? Surely he or she knows that this information can be found online? No, not in all cases. On many social media, you can tag others in photos on your profile. Just see this removed from the Internet again. Or a negative message has appeared about someone without their knowledge.
So an unfortunate photo shared by a former college friend can be disastrous for a candidate's career. This cannot be the intention and with a timely notification, the applicant can decide to quickly screen his social media channels or remove specific photos (or have them removed) before putting the cover letter in the (digital) mail. It does not change the fact that you would only consult LinkedIn. In fact, LinkedIn falls just as much under social media, even if it is used in a more businesslike manner.
Screening via social media is certainly still a possibility, but not until after properly informing the applicant. Establish an application guideline or expand the privacy statement to verify a candidate on LinkedIn or otherwise. Be clear in the screening intentions and, more importantly, don't be distracted by old photos that clearly ended up on the Internet unintentionally. Because although website operators also have a privacy obligation in the form of cooperating with an oblivion request, it still proves to be very difficult to erase traces from the worldwide web. But that is fodder for an entirely different article.
This information and more is discussed in detail in the book Privacy in the Workplace by Melanie Hermes and Arjen van Halem. The book can be ordered from the Berghauser Pont website
On July 9 and Nov. 12, Melanie Hermes hosts the online workshop "Privacy in the Workplace.
Employers like to be aware of the ups and downs of their employees. But how far may they go in this regard? What are the options and obligations when it comes to camera surveillance, illness registration and job applications?
The online workshop 'Privacy in the workplace' explains what all players in the workplace are bound by when it comes to employee privacy. Using case histories, the topic is made clear and you can actually work with it.
