Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by DippityShurff
 - Dec 25, 2005, 02:52 PM
I think you are all correct.  On our hires, our policy requires that the applicant obtain his own personnel files, but gives us a limited power of attorney for acting as his agent.  This dilutes the company's power to refuse.

But absent a release form of some type, I can't just walk in, flash my badge and look at personnel files.  Quite honestly, I'm glad I can't.  Court orders of course change the rules.

Merry Christmas
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Nov 10, 2005, 11:37 PM
Quote from: dimas on Nov 09, 2005, 03:57 PMUrbanLaw,

I have to disagree with Sergeant1107, in that an agency short of a court order is NOT required to show a police department or even a federal agency any information on an applicant even if he did sign a release of liability.

This is completely dependant on the company as some will share the information and others will only divulge salary and date of hire information.  

I agree that in most instances a private firm will not simply turn over personnel records to the police absent a court order.

However, private companies are legally compelled to allow a person access to his or her own personnel files.  The release police applicants sign (at least in my department) is basically a request to see their own personnel files.  That request is simply presented to the company by the detective doing the background investigation, rather than by the person making the request.  Since the request is coming from the person to whom the personnel files are regarding, the company has no legal reason to withold it.
Posted by dimas
 - Nov 09, 2005, 03:57 PM
UrbanLaw,

I have to disagree with Sergeant1107, in that an agency short of a court order is NOT required to show a police department or even a federal agency any information on an applicant even if he did sign a release of liability.

This is completely dependant on the company as some will share the information and others will only divulge salary and date of hire information.  

Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Nov 05, 2005, 09:57 AM
If you were to ask your company to see your personnel files they would have to allow you to.  The waiver required by most agencies grants similar access.  

Basically, you sign a waiver saying that you want to see your personnel record, but that you want to give it to the Anytown, USA police department.
Posted by UrbanLaw
 - Nov 05, 2005, 03:32 AM
Had a question and figured there may be someone who may be able to answer this question.

During the background investigation, do local and state department have access to ones personnel files (h.r)?  Just started the b.i. with a dept and had to sign a release form which allows the dept access to basically everything.  However my company has a policy of being hard nosed on releasing info.  They usually just provide date of hire, current status, salary etc.  I know some dept send in survey forms to employers/supervisors asking them to rate employees etc.   My main question is about having access to the personnel files themselves, is this common or done at all by non-federal agencies?