Injurious to your health?

These aren't signs that the recruitment industry has suddenly improved its image, but rather evidence that the new regulations governing the conduct of employment agencies – and their temporary staffing counterparts, namely employment businesses – are beginning to bite.

As ever, with new legislation the terminology is often vague, the accompanying guidance flawed and all parties are consequently left wondering how to interpret some of the more contentious expression.

For example, under the new regulations a person can sue the agent if they suffer loss or damage as a result of a recruiter breaching the regulations. At first glance that would be unambiguous, until the more quizzical among us wonder what exactly constitutes 'damage'.

Guidelines from the DTI
For definitive advice, we turn to the guidance issued jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) which clearly states that damage includes diseases or impairment of that person's physical or mental condition. Now forgive me, but how can the failure of a recruiter cause you to catch some disease (unless your new job involves too many overnight stays in far away countries with dubious companions, and the recruiter fails to give you proper advice regarding safer sex)?

Equally, how can a recruiter prevent you from being subject to physical harm (unless, of course, you're being sent to become security supervisor for a tribe of cannibals)?

To date, I've assumed that those of you entertaining thoughts of working in a war zone such as Iraq are aware that you might just be killed, or that the Columbian cartels may not be too keen on some of your anti-counterfeiting measures, which could place you in some danger? By definition, is the role of a security officer, supervisor or manager a risk, and to what extent do you expect recruiters to advise you of this risk? Perhaps all job descriptions for the security industry will soon have a caution attached which is similar to that found on cigarette packets... 'Warning: this job may seriously damage your health!'

You can see that sending an applicant half way across the country for a job when they have no chance of being accepted is likely to cause that job seeker loss of some kind. And those recruiters who fail to tell the applicant that the role is only for a six-month period are equally guilty of causing a loss. Rightly, they should be prosecuted. Of course, that's not in the same advice we receive!

Regulation 20 of the new guidance document is equally perplexing. Under this regulation, recruiters must notify the hirers of temporary staff (without delay) if they have any information regarding the potential unsuitability of a given worker. What does 'potential unsuitability' mean, exactly? To make matters worse, the regulations then state that, where a reasonable belief exists, the assignment is to be terminated without delay.

All things considered, the legal process of justice appears to be that if a recruiter has any suspicions at all (eg from an anonymous informer) then they're required to pass this information to the hiring company immediately. Presumably, after an investigation (although this isn't prescribed) if any reasonable belief remains the assignment ends in an automatic termination of the contract. Note that reasonable proof isn't required for the dismissal to become mandatory.

You can see that sending an applicant half way across the country for a job when they have no chance of being accepted is likely to cause that job seeker loss of some kind. And those recruiters who fail to tell the applicant that the role is only for a

You don't have to be used to working under the 'suspicion rules' to be uncomfortable with just how far this may be stretched, and the untold damage that can be caused by malicious references and the like!

Thank heavens most temporary workers aren't employees and therefore can't sue the recruitment agency for unfair dismissal. Of course, following the recent Brook Street versus Dacass ruling they might now be able to if they've been with the same employer for over 12 months. Those working in the public sector can most certainly claim a breach of their Human Rights (fair trial).

The same regulation isn't confined to temporary workers. Under this regulation recruiters are to ensure that the placement will not be detrimental to either the new employee or the hiring company. The guidance here is clear enough. Detriment includes advising of when we suspect a company is trading in immoral practices. On a more definite note, what's immoral? And from who's perspective? Now there's a Socratic debate to be had!

Turning to 'recruiter speak'?
Of course I've highlighted the more questionable sides of these regulations and the supporting advice penned jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the REC. However, the new regulations do make it clear that job seekers can expect to be informed about the serious pitfalls of the jobs for which they are applying (although one suspects that the more dubious recruiters will develop 'recruiter speak' similar to that adopted by estate agents and send out reams of paperwork in the midst of which the key details lie hidden).

Another positive outcome is that the withholding of temporary staff's wages just because the client isn't available to sign a timesheet has now been outlawed. Also, the suspect practice of recruitment firms copying vacancies from their competitors and using them to attract candidates remains outlawed.

We expect it will take some time to interpret fully the new legislation. We're planning on working with the BSIA to establish credible guidance on this and the other issues involved.