Research carried out by The Risk Advisory Group, surveying nearly 4,000 CVs, highlighted that inaccuracies on CVs is an increasing problem for employers. From the research, it appears that dishonesty is most prevalent in people aged 36-40 year olds. The research uncovered that 62.9% of CVs screened in this age bracket contained at least one discrepancy – an increase of more than 10% on 2006.

In attempts to detect discrepancies in candidates' CVs/applications and monitor their behaviour before taking potential candidates on, employers are turning to the Internet and in particular, social networking sites to screen people. However, we suggest that employers should think carefully before carrying out online checks on potential candidates.

Employers must be conscious not to go too far in their attempts to verify details provided by applicants. The potential risks must be taken account when using sites such as Facebook and MySpace as employers could be proven to have discriminated against a potential employee in carrying out these checks. A quick read of a candidate’s profile on such a site could reveal a person’s unusual religious views, beliefs, or sexuality, all of which could lead to judgments being unfairly made about the applicant.

The law does not prohibit employers using the Internet to check that candidates have not lied on their CVs; this information is in the public domain. The problems arise when decisions as to the suitability of a candidate are made on the basis of information found on the Internet. If a candidate is rejected on the basis of that information alone then the employer is at risk of a discrimination claim, should the candidate discover the real reason for their application being unsuccessful. Employers must bear in mind the Internet is a useful tool, but it must be used with caution when playing a part in the recruitment procedure.

Most common discrepancies on CVs and application forms

• Inaccurate dates, ages and exam results
• Fictitious professional qualifications
• Undeclared county court judgments
• Undeclared directorships

Discrimination by association

The EC Equal Treatment Framework Directive protects those who, although not themselves disabled, suffer discrimination or harassment because of their association with a disabled person, according to a key opinion issued by the Advocate-General at the European Court of Justice.

The case of Coleman v Attridge Law concerned a Claimant who was not herself disabled but cared for her disabled son.  On asking for time off to care for him, her employer accused her of being 'lazy' and trying to manipulate her working conditions.  She brought a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, arguing that she had suffered disability discrimination by association.  On a literal reading the DDA does not cover such discrimination however, arguably, the Directive implies that it should.  In order to clarify the position the case was referred to the ECJ  by the South London Employment Triunal for a preliminary ruling.

The Advocate General has stated that direct discrimination and / or harassment by association is prohibited by the Directive.  His opinion said that the Directive protects against discrimination “on the grounds of” disability and makes it unlawful for an employer to rely on religion / age / disability, etc to treat employees less well than others.  This does not change when the employee who is the object of discrimination is not disabled herself. The opinion indicates that the same principle also applies to any of the other grounds prohibited in the Directive, that is, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation. This is a very important development as it may provide protection to large groups of people.

If the ECJ follows the Opinion when it issues its ruling later this year – which it is highly likely to - the Employment Tribunal will then have to determine whether it can interpret the DDA so as to give effect to the Directive.  If not, it is likely that the Government will need to change a raft of relevant legislation to bring it into line with the Directive.

Fact File – Maternity Leave

• A pregnant employee is entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave
• There is no requirement for the employee to have served a specific amount of time to qualify for maternity leave
• Ordinary maternity leave can be taken at any time from the 11th week before the expected birth date
• The employee is free to work until the day before the baby’s expected birth if they wish
• The employee must give their employer notice of their intention to take maternity leave within 15 weeks notice before the date of the expected birth and the date that she intends to start maternity leave
• The employer must notify the employee within 28 days of being informed of the pregnancy to confirm her right to maternity leave and confirm her return date
• Upon the employee’s return, the employer must give the employee the same benefits as they had before taking maternity leave
• 2 weeks of maternity leave are compulsory (4 weeks if the employee is a factory worker) and it is a criminal offence for an employer to allow an employed mother to work during this time
• Women are protected from any unfair treatment at work because of their pregnancy or childbirth, or their wish to take maternity leave
• Any dismissal connected with "pregnancy" is automatically classed as an unfair dismissal
• An employee is entitled to return to her previous job after a period of ordinary maternity leave

Compensation increase

New limits for the amount of compensation that can be awarded for unfair dismissal claims are effective from 1 February 2008. The Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2007 provides that this year's core compensation limit increases are:-

• a week's pay (basic award / redundancy payment) - from £310 to £330
• maximum compensatory award - from £60,600 to £63,000