Given that one of the candidates was Heidi’s relative, Heidi, responsible for conducting the recruitment interview, was in a conflict of interest situation.  Heidi should avoid the situation as far as possible and adhere to the company code of conduct in handling it, such as declaring their relationship to the company.

If Heidi failed to disclose such a conflict of interest, the company could not take appropriate measure to mitigate the risk arising from the conflict (e.g., deploying another officer with no conflict of interest to take up the interview) and even worse, giving rise to allegation of bias and unfairness, and putting the company into disrepute.  Moreover, such failure to declare the conflict as required would cast doubt on Heidi’s integrity.  Even if Heidi acted impartially and her relative was the best candidate, the conflict of interest could still lead to the perception of favouritism and unfairness to other candidates. 

If false document is involved (e.g. falsifying documents to cover up conflict involved), it may breach S.9(3) of the POBO.  Using fraudulent means to conceal conflicts during the recruitment exercise for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances may lead to criminal charges such as deception and fraud, and could breach the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance if bribery is involved.

Case Analysis

The site supervisor was the employee and hence agent of the construction company.  He solicited and accepted advantages (i.e. the “introduction fees”) from the workers for referring them to work at the construction site, which was related to the affairs of the construction company (i.e. his principal).  In the absence of the principal’s permission to solicit and accept advantages, he had contravened Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap.201) (POBO).  As a result, the site supervisor was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay $200,000 as restitution to the construction company.  The workers who paid the “introduction fees” had also contravened Section 9(2) of the POBO, for offering advantages to an agent of the company.

Case in Perspective

Under the POBO, both the giver and receiver of bribes commit an offence.  In addition, trade practice or custom could NOT be an excuse for soliciting, offering or accepting bribes. 

In the above case, the site supervisory staff breached the trust placed on him by his employer in the recruitment of workers and abused his powers for personal gains.  This rendered himself liable to criminal liabilities, damaged the reputation of the construction company and the industry as a whole, and might even undermine the quality and safety of the works, particularly if incompetent workers were recruited for the works only because they were willing to pay the “introduction fees”.  

To prevent their staff/employees and agents from falling prey to corruption in the recruitment of workers and hence ensure the quality and safety of works, construction companies should put in place adequate corruption prevention safeguards in recruitment of workers.  Examples of safeguards include –

(a) Prohibit staff/employees or agents, through staff code of conduct or employment contracts, from soliciting and accepting advantages in relation to their work particularly in the recruitment of workers;

(b) Enhance the transparency of payment of wages to workers (e.g. adopting written employment contracts and clearly specifying the wages therein) and put in place control measures in the procedures for recruitment of workers;

(c) Arrange payment of introduction/handling fee, if applicable and payable to the staff/agents, directly to the staff/agents responsible for recruitment of workers; and

(d) Remind staff/employees, agents and workers to be vigilant and report suspected corruption to the ICAC immediately.