James
I realise you are asking for colleagues’ direct experiences, not for
consultants’ views. But your question impels me to respond.
The reason is that – to the best of my knowledge – there is no HR document
on which a “wet” signature can have what you call legal significance greater
than an scanned copy of same (always assuming that the system you used is
properly designed, implemented and maintained). If anyone says that a wet
signature is required for a particular document, you might challenge them to
produce the authority for that statement. The same applies to almost all
fields in which we keep signed documents as records, with very few
exceptions.
Regardless, it is sometimes worth thinking through the nature of a legal
challenge that could result if you do, or do not, scan and destroy.
1. If you present an original paper document with a wet signature as
evidence, the presumption is that the signature is real. That is open to
challenge by your opponent. Presumably you would rely on potential forensic
evidence to demonstrate that the signature is what it purports to be (I say
potential because few HR cases are likely to take evidential integrity
issues to that length). I suspect that such evidence is likely to confirm
it fully in only rare cases, though it could definitively prove the
contrary. And of course the reality is that it is often easier to tamper
with a filed paper document than a well-managed scanned image.
2. If on the other hand you have destroyed the paper with the wet signature
and you present a scanned-and-printed copy, the presumption is that the
signature is real. To challenge that presumption, your opponent would have
assert that the signature is forged, and/or to prove that there was a
plausible mechanism for changing it at some point. I leave you to estimate
how likely the former is, and I point out that your properly designed,
implemented and maintained system will defeat any arguments on the latter
(audit trails as specified in BIP 0008 and so on).
Marc Fresko
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James BUTTON
[7220]
Sent: 23 December 2009 10:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Electronic HR files: how far have you gone?
Dear all
I know the issue of legal admissibility has been discussed a few times on
the list and I have found the discussions both interesting and very useful.
Our organisation has implemented an EDRM system, and are aiming to hold most
Human Resources files electronically and where appropriate dispose of paper
originals. We are proposing to keep some key files in a paper format (i.e.
those where a ‘wet signature’ is legally significant and where there is a
significant chance they would be required in legal action).
I was hoping to gauge the strategies employed at other organisations (either
on or off list): for example has anyone gone exclusively electronic with HR
files?
Merry Christmas to all!
Many thanks
James Button
Records Manager
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
Tel: 0117 931 7220
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Anything in this message which does not clearly relate to the official work
of the sender's organisation shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by that organisation.
For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For
any content based queries, please email
[log in to unmask]
For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask]
For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]
|