May

The Data Privacy Subgroup has been hard at work at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Lima, Peru, examining the APEC Privacy Framework and its attendant Cross Border Privacy Rules. Endorsed by APEC in 2011, the CBPR program admittedly is still in its infancy. Just 14 companies have been through the process, only Japan, Canada, Mexico, and the United States currently participate, and there is relatively little name recognition for the program. One participant noted that a search of Singaporian media turned up just a single reference for CPBRs. Member economies heard an APEC-commissioned report from Information Integrity Solutions that explored the answer to this question. Part of it is purely efficiency. One company reported that the CBPR process helped considerably in its application for binding corporate rules in the EU, shortening the time for BCR completion to nine months and reducing costs by nearly 10%. Look for APEC to do much more to raise awareness of the program, with a CBPR conference this year in Vietnam, and potential conferences in Singapore and Australia before 2017.

"Mistakes can occur during criminal history checks, so it's vital to ensure job applicants have a right of reply when a record turns up, said WorkPro founder Tania Evans. HR professionals must consider a range of factors when relying on criminal history checks for recruitment decision-making, and the first step is to design a risk matrix. If a role does require a criminal history check, HR must make this clear to the job applicant. Only a limited number of people in the organisation should be allowed to manage criminal history checks, to ""ensure that the privacy of the individual is upheld"", said Evans. These people should be in a position to make a decision about the candidate's employment, to discuss outcomes with the candidate and to mitigate possible discrimination claims. The UK's High Court has recently ruled that England and Wales' system of requiring individuals to disclose prior convictions is in conflict with the Human Rights Act. The decision has potential ramifications in Australia due to the similarities in our legal systems, and the way Australia often follows UK employment law trends."

With national data showing alcohol and other drugs drain up to $6 million dollars from Australian workplaces each year due to lost productivity, many employers are reviewing their workplace drug and alcohol policies. Simon Clayer, Senior Associate with HopgoodGanim says employers who don 't step up to prevent drug and alcohol impaired employees from endangering other staff may be liable for the actions of those employees. Clayer recommends any employer considering drafting a drug and alcohol in the workplace policy consider the following guidelines: Develop the policy in consultation with all stakeholders in the workplace such as unions, workers, and health and safety representatives, Apply the policy equally to all workers across all levels of the business, Clearly state what is acceptable behaviour and the consequences of any unacceptable behaviour, If the policy includes testing, describe the testing protocols and procedures, and Ensure the policy is clearly communicated to all members of the workforce.