Amend­ment to the Fede­ral Per­son­nel Act: draft and dis­patch (inclu­ding pro­fil­ing and whistleblowing)

Authority(ies): 

Branch(es): 

Laws:

Tags:

Content 

On August 28, 2024, the Fede­ral Coun­cil adopted the dis­patch on the revi­si­on of the Fede­ral Per­son­nel Act (FPA):

The FPA regu­la­tes per­son­nel law for the Fede­ral Admi­ni­stra­ti­on, the Par­lia­men­ta­ry Ser­vices, the Swiss Fede­ral Rail­ways, the decen­tra­li­zed admi­ni­stra­ti­ve units and the fede­ral courts, sub­ject to spe­cial sta­tu­to­ry pro­vi­si­ons and other bodies, but not for orga­nizati­ons and per­sons under public or pri­va­te law out­side the Fede­ral Admi­ni­stra­ti­on that are ent­ru­sted with admi­ni­stra­ti­ve tasks (Art. 2 FPA).

Pro­fil­ing

One aim of the par­ti­al revi­si­on is to crea­te a sta­tu­to­ry Basis for pro­fil­ing (Art. 27 rev-BPG). Pro­fil­ing is requi­red for the search for poten­ti­al employees in social media. The message:

As social media use algo­rith­ms to compa­re job­see­kers’ search queries with job offers, this form of recruit­ment falls under the con­cept of pro­fil­ing, which was intro­du­ced into the legal system when the new Data Pro­tec­tion Act came into force on Sep­tem­ber 1, 2023. Accor­ding to the Data Pro­tec­tion Act, fede­ral bodies requi­re a legal basis to be able to car­ry out pro­fil­ing. This bill aims to crea­te such a basis so that the fede­ral aut­ho­ri­ties can con­ti­n­ue to use social media for recruit­ment pur­po­ses. This regu­la­tes which data may be used for what purpose.

Pro­fil­ing exists becau­se fede­ral bodies who­se employment rela­ti­on­ships are sub­ject to the BPG (if they do so) are sub­ject to pro­fil­ing at the Acti­ve search for appli­cants are also allo­wed to car­ry out profiling:

By using sta­tis­ti­cal and mathe­ma­ti­cal methods, espe­ci­al­ly algo­rith­ms, new infor­ma­ti­on about indi­vi­du­als can be gene­ra­ted from a lar­ge amount of data that may not be very meaningful on its own. Employers are also incre­a­sing­ly using new recruit­ment chan­nels and tech­no­lo­gies to bet­ter reach cer­tain age and pro­fes­sio­nal groups. In par­ti­cu­lar, in the social media such as Lin­ke­dIn and Xing an acti­ve recruit­mentknown as acti­ve sourcing. Social media users deci­de whe­ther to crea­te a pro­fi­le on social media and what data they dis­c­lo­se about them­sel­ves. With the Search and eva­lua­ti­on opti­ons for social media various user data is lin­ked with the aim of sug­ge­st­ing sui­ta­ble can­di­da­tes to employers for a spe­ci­fic posi­ti­on and pre­sen­ting users with sui­ta­ble job offers. Employers enter the requi­re­ments that the poten­ti­al can­di­da­te must ful­fill for a spe­ci­fic posi­ti­on on social media. The methods and algo­rith­ms used in social media allow employers to actively search for users who best meet the spe­ci­fi­ed requi­re­ments. Due to the auto­ma­ted approach, acti­ve recruit­ment can cor­re­spond to pro­fil­ing or high-risk pro­fil­ing in accordance with the FADP.

It is inte­re­st­ing to note that the Fede­ral Coun­cil appar­ent­ly assu­mes that such pro­fil­ing is attri­bu­ta­ble to the fede­ral body and not or not only to the pro­vi­der of the plat­form, albeit wit­hout expli­ci­t­ly addres­sing this issue. Howe­ver, the use of the plat­form for the auto­ma­ted “eva­lua­ti­on” of pos­si­ble sui­ta­bi­li­ty may inde­ed con­sti­tu­te pro­fil­ing under cer­tain circumstances.

At Assess­ments Fur­ther­mo­re, high-risk pro­fil­ing may also be present:

The assess­ment ser­ves as sup­port in per­son­nel sel­ec­tion. The­re are dif­fe­rent types of assess­ment: the group assess­ment (assess­ment cen­ter), the indi­vi­du­al assess­ment, the sel­ec­tion assess­ment, the deve­lo­p­ment assess­ment, the loca­ti­on assess­ment and the remo­te assess­ment. The sel­ec­tion assess­ment pro­vi­des employers with valuable infor­ma­ti­on that helps them to find out which per­son from a nar­row group of appli­cants is best sui­ted for a spe­ci­fic posi­ti­on. This type of assess­ment is used in par­ti­cu­lar when recrui­ting peo­p­le for seni­or manage­ment posi­ti­ons. The assess­ments are usual­ly car­ri­ed out by psy­cho­lo­gists and are based on the fol­lo­wing cri­te­ria also machi­ne-con­trol­led tests for the eva­lua­ti­on of cer­tain cha­rac­te­ri­stics used. An assess­ment usual­ly ends with a report for the employer. This report cor­re­sponds to a com­pi­la­ti­on of data from which a Pic­tu­re of essen­ti­al aspects or par­ti­al aspects of the appli­cant. The assess­ment is par­ti­al­ly auto­ma­ted. It can be assu­med that the auto­ma­ti­on of the assess­ment will increa­se in the future. Due to the method (auto­ma­ted assess­ment of cer­tain aspects) and the result (per­so­na­li­ty pro­fi­le), it can be assu­med that assess­ments con­sti­tu­te high-risk pro­fil­ing under the FADP can.

The Fede­ral Coun­cil agrees with the pre­vai­ling view that pro­fil­ing con­sti­tu­tes high-risk pro­fil­ing if its result cor­re­sponds to a per­so­na­li­ty pro­fi­le under the old law and not if the input data – the data basis for pro­fil­ing – taken tog­e­ther is a per­so­na­li­ty pro­fi­le. This is important becau­se many data eva­lua­tions are based on a broad basis (e.g. tran­sac­tion data) but lead to a nar­row result (e.g. an affi­ni­ty). The­se cases do not con­sti­tu­te high-risk pro­fil­ing becau­se it is the out­put and not the input that mat­ters – this is the con­se­quence of the posi­ti­on that the Fede­ral Coun­cil has appar­ent­ly adopted.

Howe­ver, the legal basis should not only cover the­se cases, but also others, inclu­ding with regard to arti­fi­ci­al intelligence:

Both appli­cants and employees are expec­ted to take advan­ta­ge of the oppor­tu­ni­ties offe­red by digi­ta­lizati­on and to take tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ments into account. Stan­dard appli­ca­ti­ons should incre­a­sing­ly be used in the fede­ral admi­ni­stra­ti­on. It can be assu­med that the­se appli­ca­ti­ons will be used in the future. chan­ging algo­rith­ms, arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gence and new tech­no­lo­gies be used. Employers will the­r­e­fo­re not be able to avo­id the new tech­no­lo­gies. For this rea­son, a legal basis for pro­fil­ing and high-risk pro­fil­ing should be added to the area of per­son­nel recruit­ment. also in other are­as of human resour­ces be crea­ted. This is for the tar­ge­ted pro­mo­ti­on and long-term reten­ti­on of employees as well as for per­son­nel development

This rai­ses the inte­re­st­ing que­sti­on of whe­ther the use of an LLM can con­sti­tu­te high-risk pro­fil­ing if the out­put cor­re­sponds to a per­so­na­li­ty pro­fi­le. This is likely to be the case if the input con­ta­ins per­so­nal data or if the LLM con­ta­ins and uses per­so­nal data. Whe­ther this can be the case is a con­ten­tious issuebut this can­not be ruled out a priori.

Fur­ther adjustments

Fur­ther adjust­ments rela­te to the Whist­le­b­lo­wing. Art. 22a rev-BPG focu­ses on cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons and ter­mi­no­lo­gi­cal chan­ges. Howe­ver, the prin­ci­ple of public access is now exclu­ded for “docu­ments that sub­stan­tia­te a report under this pro­vi­si­on, are sub­mit­ted with it or were crea­ted on the basis of a report” in order to pro­tect con­fi­dence in the insti­tu­ti­on of whist­le­b­lo­wing. The FDPIC had spo­ken out against this exclusion.

Fur­ther chan­ges con­cern the Disci­pli­na­ry inve­sti­ga­ti­on and Digi­tizati­on topics:

Final­ly, the revi­si­on will be used as an oppor­tu­ni­ty to make a num­ber of adjust­ments to cla­ri­fy and dri­ve for­ward the digi­ta­lizati­on of HR. On the one hand, the­se amend­ments con­cern the Whist­le­b­lower artic­le: Con­fi­den­ti­al fede­ral offices are to be exempt­ed from the obli­ga­ti­on to report cri­mes or offen­ses if they report the sus­pi­ci­on in the cour­se of their activities.
draw. Second­ly, the amend­ments rela­te to employment con­tracts. The initi­al aim here is to bring them clo­ser to employment con­tracts in the pri­va­te sec­tor by rela­xing the for­mal requi­re­ments. For exam­p­le, the sig­ning of an employment con­tract should also Advan­ced elec­tro­nic signa­tures can be used. In addi­ti­on, it should be pos­si­ble under fede­ral per­son­nel law to ter­mi­na­te fixed-term con­tracts in the same way as under pri­va­te law, pro­vi­ded this has been con­trac­tual­ly agreed. Final­ly, the maxi­mum com­pen­sa­ti­on award­ed by the courts in the event of unfair dis­mis­sal should now be a maxi­mum of eight months’ salary.