December

Employers in Indonesia regularly carry out background checks on applicants. Background checks are not expressly regulated by Indonesian employment laws, and certain background checks are subject to the consent of the applicant in practice.

The most common background checks involve those on an applicant's educational credentials, employment history and professional licenses, which, in practice, are usually provided voluntarily by the applicant. Any checks undertaken must be appropriate and proportionate to the position being applied for and must not discriminate or discourage people from applying.

There are no specific privacy or data protection requirements under Indonesian employment laws for employers who want to obtain criminal records, school records or employment or financial information of employees or potential employees. However, Indonesia has enacted various laws relating to data privacy in a number of areas.

A  consumer class action based upon Defendant UBS Financial Services, Inc.’s (UBS) violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (FCRA) showed that UBS systematically violates at least two sections of the FCRA: section 1681b(b)(2).  By procuring consumer reports about current or prospective employees and deceptively embedding improper release language, as well as other extraneous language, in the consumer consent and disclosure document, UBS checks requires prospective and current employees to sign prior to ordering a background check breaks FCRA rules.  This also applies to section 1681b(b)(3), by using employment background checks to make adverse employment decisions without providing the consumer job applicants who are the subjects of the background checks a copy of the report used, along with a summary of his or her rights.

Under the FCRA, and a sufficient amount of time to contest and|or correct any errors in the reports before the adverse action is taken. The Plaintiff in this case seeks relief against the Defendant including: That judgment be entered against the Defendant for statutory damages in the amount of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation per Class member; That judgment be entered against the Defendant for punitive damages, etc.

On June 3, 2015, the Ontario government introduced Bill 113, the Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015, legislation that would, if passed, implement a new process governing requests for searches of the Canadian Police Information Centre databases, or other police databases, in connection with screening an individual for certain purposes.

Among other things, the Bill would: authorize Ontario police services to offer three types of records checks: criminal record checks, criminal record and judicial matters checks and vulnerable sector checks and limit and standardize the types of information that are authorized for disclosure in respect of each type of check. Persons or organizations that willfully contravene certain provisions of the Act would be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5,000.