While the banking sector generally and firmly rejected the veracity of polygraph tests, employees within the insurance, FMCG and retail industries could find themselves wired up and their bodily responses scrutinised for evidence of dishonesty. And, says Debbie Goodman-Bhyat of Jack Hammer, they need to be aware that there is currently no legislation covering polygraph testing, which could see some employees on the back foot in a crisis.
Those in the pro-polygraph camp point out that lie detector tests are another weapon in a company's arsenal if an employee is accused of a serious offence. One respondent from the retail sector indicated that not only would they subject employees to polygraph tests but also to simultaneous "lifestyle audits" in the case of financial mismanagement charges. Others indicated that such tests are a good way of indicating whether employees share the company's values and whether they have integrity, especially when handling substantial amounts of money.
The banking sector came down sharply against such tests, with respondents indicating that they rely on stringent recruitment procedures to ensure that only individuals with integrity are hired. Some felt that the tests were not an exact science and irrelevant to a white-collar environment, while stating a preference for hard evidence.
"Once the crime - usually fraud or theft - has been committed, you cannot go back and undo it. A polygraph test may help you uncover the guilty party in a crisis but the possible damage to your corporate reputation and staff morale has already been incurred. It is surely better to hire exemplary employees and minimise the chances of crime than to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, so to speak," says Goodman-Bhyat.
There is currently no legislation covering lie detector tests in South Africa, and both the CCMA and courts of law will only consider polygraph evidence in conjunction with other evidence. "This means that no employee can be compelled to take a polygraph test and that failing one is not an automatic indication of guilt. Employees who find themselves in a situation where they may have to take a test must give their consent in writing," says Goodman-Bhyat.
According to polygraphic best practices, HR managers and employees should abide by certain guidelines, for the protection of all parties. HR managers have to inform the individual that the examination is voluntary, and that only issues discussed prior to the test will be examined. In addition, employees have the right to an interpreter and the right to have another party present, provided that person does not interfere with the investigation.
Even with all these parameters in place, polygraph evidence alone is not a basis for finding guilt when the case is put before the CCMA. "Ideally, I would prefer to see more sectors screening potential employees more stringently than hoping for the best and having to do damage control and resorting to measures such as lie detector tests in a crisis," notes Goodman-Bhyat.
