Need help about an employment issue?

Have been employed by big high street chain for over 9 years.

According to HR dept even though I've been employed for over 9 years by said high street chain I've still got to provide evidence that I'm eligable to work in UK. My argument is that it's an insult to ask for this as I've worked for the company for so long and surely there is a cut off date to say when you have worked for someone for x amount of years.

Can anyone find out for me the exact law HR is talking about and where I can read it for myself as I don't trust their interpretation of it? many thanks xx

I was born here and have never lived outside this country and I was asking for advice not insulting remarks.

Its actually Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 that requires that employers verify their employees right to work in the UK. Employers can be prosecuted and fined up to 拢5000 per employee if they have not taken appropriate steps to prove their employee's right to work in the UK.

When the act was changed in 2004 the company I worked for decided to do a check on all current employees, as well as putting into place tighter steps for new recruits. During this check we discovered that a number of employees had letters which looked exactly the same with their different names on confirming their right to work. Now these letters had been provided at the time of employment, but as these were at different times were never viewed together. When we viewed them all at the same time it became very clear that one of the employees had an original letter and the rest had made a copy and doctored it. We had to contact the Home Office for advice on what to do, as essentially we were employing illegals and could be prosecuted for it.

I don't see why anyone who has the right to work in the UK would be insulted by being asked to prove it. I had no problem in showing them my passport.

We are all quick to moan about the government's ease on illegal immigrants, but when we are asked to comply with an act which is aimed at catching them we complain.

Go to the website below to look at the acts relating to Asylum and Immigration Act. Your employer is completely within their rights to request you prove your eligibility to work in the UK.

Well, I really dont know the answer, but here in ohio, we are now petitioning, for employers, to let employees, be open and honest with <like u> the employee coming forth without scale,
of pay lessening, and also the right for employers not to be able to hold against an employee, especially, people who earned their spot insurance wise and pension wise, in other words, so they cannot hire someone of lesser wage for ur job. checkk ur state, if not started there, and it may be in place there, and at this points employers can do what they choose when they choose it. the balls in their court with billions of people wanting to fill ur shoes for five bucks. good luck

I believe legislation was introduced or changed in 2004. Employers cannot make any assumptions about people's ethnicity or eligibility to work in the UK, so even people born here are required to provide proof of ID.

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/act...

check this for information.

and pronto talk to a union rep or if you do not have one
find a TGW
http://www.usdaw.org.uk/

Call and seek advice

Do not discuss this or any other actions with anyone at the shop.
ask a citizens advice bureau

Have you a National Insurance Number

why not just give them the evidence? If you had been there for 50 years you could still be working there illegally, not giving them the evidence will just result in them thinking you are working their illegally and they probably could sack you for refusing to give them documents

You think it's an insult to prove to your employer that you're not breaking the law? The company is liable if you're NOT eligable to work in the UK, and THEY could be fined.

Grow up.

i agree with the questioner, if they have been paying her tax and stamp for 9 years, she must have a NI number how can she not be a legal worker.
you have every right to question them

Just because somebody's been working in a country for 9 years doesn't make them a legal worker.

It's going to take you 30 seconds to prove you're legal. Where's the problem?

It's nothing to do with HR, the Government will be leaning on HR.

If you are eligible to work in the UK then whats the problem. If your not then get out the country.

Companies do some crazy things sometimes. It does sound a bit daft - I know! But, I understand that all companies can be checked by govt officials in snap audits and the companies must, by law, produce records that show that details have been checked. I know someone that employed some foreign laborers and he got 'raided'. Even though he had checked all their details, he was found to have 2 illegals working for him with forged passports and visas.

I think it's due to the govts initiative against so - called illegal asylum seekers.

If it's any consolation, I am an electrician in the UK. My company (a big utility) makes me produce my trade qualifications every THREE years to check that I am actually an electrician still - HUH (as if)! Otherwise, it threatens to revoke my electrical category that I am signed up to work for - if I don't produce the evidence.

Theres no cut off date, they can ask for evidence every year if they wish. Just because you were eligible to work when they hired you, doesnt mean that you were eligible to work now. I appreciate that in your case being a national it can be annoying, but at the same time appreciate that it is obviously illegal to employ persons that do not have the right permissions to work in the country, and that the government is cracking down on this in recent months. They can paw off any liability if they show that they have been provided with documentation to show you're eligible. My guess behind the company's policy is that they are worried that if they only ask foreign workers ever year for example to provide evidence that they will be considered to be indirectly discriminating, and as such have applied the requirement to all staff. Afraid I can't provide you the exact law for you to interpret for yourself as much derives from case law which you normally have to have a subscription to a law database to access.

Unfortunately, and especially as its only a minor inconvenience and its to enable them to comply with the law albeit in a somewhat overly cautious manner I'd comply. Your arguement that its 'insulting' would have no weight as it is, sorry to say, pathetically weak and subjective.