Biometric data Documents are uploaded to the system and checked from there. The use of biometric data offers an additional level of security as photographs from biometric chips found in passport are checked against the images in the documents and against the candidate in person. This way, documents are not just ‘checked’ but thoroughly authenticated.

These chips are also one of the most difficult things to replicate on fraudulent documents. If the document provided does not have biometric data which should be present, the software will flag this to the user.

Statutory excuse Provision of a statutory excuse if something does go wrong is the ultimate test of any RTW check. Only if the process has been followed in detail and proof can be given that employers carried it out before the candidate began work will an excuse be provided. This software does so by ensuring the process is completed fully and by recording the date at which it was carried out.

uAuthenticate offers the additional benefit of warning employers if action is needed. An example may be that a working visa is coming to an end and employers must ensure the visa has been renewed by carrying out a further check. By colour coding candidate status (green meaning right to work, amber meaning action needs to be taken, red meaning no right to work) the system simplifies the check. Organisations can simply and effectively keep track of large numbers of staff statuses.

Process, process, process The first requirement for a best-in-class RTW solution is that it follows the Home Office process. If done manually, this requires an employer to check an applicant’s original documents with the applicant present and to keep copies of the documents with a record of the date they were checked.

A number of details need to be checked including that any right to work has not expired; that the applicant has the right to carry out the type of work for which they’re applying; that the photographs are the same across the documents and are of the applicant; and if two documents give different names, that the applicant has documents to show why this is.

For those employing someone they know or suspect does not have the right to work, the penalties are heavy. ‘Reasonable cause to believe’ that someone does not have RTW can be a grey area, so stringent checks are vital.

The uComply software walks users through the process with a series of boxes to tick so that important steps are not forgotten or carried out improperly. The simplicity of the user interface means that no prior experience is required. This is a step-up from manual checks, which ultimately require some knowledge of correct documentation to be carried out properly.

Further uses Best-in-class systems offer expandability. In this case, uComply software offers the opportunity for additional documents such as references and relevant certificates to be uploaded with a candidate’s data. All data is stored in a UK-based cloud system and accessed on a need-to-know basis to protect the privacy of applicants.

The Application Process Interface enables the software to be linked to an organisation’s internal systems so that data on their staff – such as references and certificates – can then be accessed easily in one place.

Concluding remarks Sitemark’s independent benchmarking has provided employers from varied backgrounds a platform from which to choose an effective RWT checking technology. They concluded that uComply’s uAuthenticate technology meets the requirements to be a ‘best-in-class’ provider.

In a rapidly changing political and economic environment, RTW checks must be kept up to date with changing legislation. Using a best-in-class solution ensures that checks are always done in line with the current highest standards. In doing so, businesses are both protecting themselves from heavy penalties and ensuring that they and their employees are fully compliant with employment regulations. TOMORROW’S FM | 45

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68