Dear Editor,
I am responding to the column by Arif Bulkan ‘The hypocrisy Of Caricom’ published on September 6 in SN’s ‘Diaspora’ column, as well as the letter in response, ‘Diaspora column contained inaccuracies’ by Edward Greene (SN, September 12).
When I started reading Dr Bulkan’s column, at first I thought he was talking about me, but then realised that it was another candidate. He raised a very valid concern which Mr Greene failed to address: “Does Caricom Impacs screen for HIV as part of the job interview?”
The answer is that it does – or at least it did up to September 25, 2008. I am a Barbadian national living in England. In June 2008 I applied for the post of Communications Officer and was shortlisted. I did a telephone interview and an online Psychometric Evaluation in August 2008. I was told that if I passed that I would be invited to a panel interview in Barbados in September. I did pass and was flown to Barbados for the interview which was to take place on Friday, September 19 (Impacs part-paid the cost to get me to Barbados). In the interview I was asked if I minded doing a polygraph and a medical. The advertisement never specified that these were part of the requirements but I agreed.
After the interview, I was called later that night and asked to go to Trinidad the following night in order to take a polygraph test on Sunday. I did.
When I got back to Barbados, I was asked to submit to a medical examination. I was sent to a doctor who was hired by JRCC (Joint Regional Communications Centre) a sub-agency of Impacs in Barbados. It was when Dr Beckles read to me the waiver text that I realised that I had to do an AIDS test as well as disclose results of labs which would not normally form the basis of a medical report. I said to her that I could do all the tests immediately but asked whether she could hold the results until I had properly consulted on the matter and got certain clarifications from Impacs. She told me that I was not her client but that JRCC was so once I did all the tests and X-rays that were required, she’d have to submit them to her client. I gave her the X-rays with a categorical note asking not to release to JRCC until I had clarification on the purpose for the medical tests and the polygraph. I wrote Impacs on September 26, 2008 and raised my concerns. The letter stated, inter alia:
“I … need to find out what is the reason for the acquisition of the information gathered in the psychometric test, the polygraph, and the medical. In addition, what is your data protection policy? As you did not declare in your advertisement the use of these as qualifiers for the job, what is the purpose of you wanting this information? How long do you intend to keep it? With whom do you plan to share it?
“Secondly, how and where is your information stored and for how long? Who will have access to it and for what purpose? Of particular concern, I’ve noted from the text of the waiver which Dr Beckles read to me, that the results would be sent to JRCC which is the commissioning agency however, as I understand it, JRCC is a sub-agency of Caricom Impacs so why should they have access to my information? Would it be that any sub-agency within Caricom Impacs can just view one’s personal or sensitive personal data? What about the Caricom Secretariat? What about any other Caricom agency or government or law enforcement agency or anyone else for that matter? What is Caricom Impacs Data Protection Policy? Can I read it please? “What are my rights in respect of access to the information you are holding on me?
“These questions come against my working background in the UK where the Data Protection Act 1998 is the bedrock against discriminatory hiring practices and protection of everyone’s personal and sensitive personal data. I am fully aware that this law has absolutely no bearing, influence, or obligation whatsoever on Caricom but it is a best practice yardstick which pitches at a high level the standard of work whether it is done here in the UK or back home in the Caribbean to which I adhere. I eagerly await your clarification in the several matters raised above.”
The Executive Director telephoned me on my return to England and said that HIV tests were mandated by the Council of Ministers and it had to be administered by designated doctors which can be found in various Caricom countries. As there were no such doctors in England my application would no longer be considered.
Of course, I wanted to tell her that there are Caricom missions in England and they had designated doctors.
The problem is that no doctor in England would risk his or her licence doing such a discriminatory pre-employment medical test. Though I read with interest Mr Greene’s long letter, it stopped far short of addressing the substantive issue that was raised by Dr Bulkan.
Yours faithfully,
Terry Ally
