Research reveals a third of employers unsure of Right to Work obligations
July 19th, 2019
Research from Sterling has revealed that almost a third of employers are putting themselves at risk due to uncertainty surrounding their accountability when it comes to employment screening.
In a poll carried out in its joint webinar with representatives from the Home Office, the background screening specialist found that 31% of businesses aren’t completely confident in their obligations when it comes to Right to Work checks.
This comes at a time when the rules and requirements around these checks look set to become more complex, with representatives from the Home Office referring to the information outlined in its December 2018 report, The UK’s future skills-based immigration system, during the webinar.
According to this information, there are a number of factors that will change Right to Work checks in the near future, with post-Brexit regulation and a shift to online documentation playing key roles.
As Steve Smith, CEO of Sterling (EMEA), explains, with complexity set to increase, those unsure of their obligations need to take action now.
“Obviously the fact that two thirds are fully confident that they are aware of their obligations regarding Right to Work checks is fantastic. However, that still leaves almost a third who aren’t quite certain. Given that these requirements will change post-Brexit, and the potential risks associated with negligence look set to increase, those that fail to implement the correct processes could be exposed to potential fines.”
“For anyone unsure of their obligations both now and in the near future, seeking out expert advice is key. However, in the first instance it’s worth knowing what routes are available and what will work best for the individuals you hire and your business. The gov.uk website is a great starting place and its online Right to Work tool will be hugely valuable in helping guide you through the process. Whatever stage you’re at when it comes to knowing your obligations, inaction is simply inadvisable.”
This publication is for informational purposes only and nothing contained in it should be construed as legal advice. We expressly disclaim any warranty or responsibility for damages arising out this information. We encourage you to consult with legal counsel regarding your specific needs. We do not undertake any duty to update previously posted materials.