Pre-employment screening in Switzerland: what may lawfully be checked

A hire is rarely decided in a single interview. It turns on the coherence of a record: a diploma stated with confidence, dates that follow one another, an employer described in the present tense although the company was struck off. Pre-employment screening is less about doubting everything than about confirming, through identifiable sources, what was asserted during the process.

In Switzerland such checks are lawful, but they are bounded. They engage personality rights, the rules on personal data and, in some sectors, specific professional requirements. The useful question is therefore not whether one may look into a candidate, but how far, on which sources, with whose consent, and for how long the material may be kept.

What can be established reliably

Four categories of fact can be settled without ambiguity, provided there is written consent and a scope defined before the checks begin.

• Identity and right to work: identity document, residence or work permit, conditions attached to that permit.
• Qualifications and employment history: diplomas confirmed with the issuing institution, dates of employment with successive employers, the actual nature of the role held.
• References: structured interviews with people nominated by the candidate, focused on observable facts rather than general impressions.
• Public registers: commercial register entries, corporate offices held, published bankruptcies; a debt enforcement extract where the candidate consents and a legitimate interest exists.

Criminal records follow a separate regime. An extract is in principle issued to the person concerned. For certain regulated activities — supervision of minors, transport, security — an extract intended for the employer exists, and requires the candidate’s agreement. A recruiter demanding more than the law allows for that sector creates exposure for the company and for themselves.

What cannot be checked, even with good tools

Some information lies out of reach, not for lack of means but because the law protects it. Health data, religious belief, political opinion, trade union membership, sexual orientation, family plans: collecting these is disproportionate and, for several of them, prohibited. Private social media accounts, personal mailboxes, bank statements and tax records are not recruitment sources.

Using pretexts to obtain information — calling an employer while posing as a client, creating a fictitious profile to reach an account, approaching a relative — turns a routine check into a clear infringement. The same standard applies to subcontracting: a provider offering privileged access to restricted files discredits the entire arrangement.

Open sources: read, cross-check, doubt

A candidate’s public professional footprint — publications, conference appearances, declared offices — can illuminate a career. It must be read cautiously: namesakes are common, profiles go stale, directories recycle unverified material. A conclusion drawn from a single open source remains a hypothesis.

Sanctions and politically exposed person screening has its place where the role justifies it: executive management, compliance, positions exposed to corruption risk. Applied to a role unconnected with those risks, it becomes an intrusive exercise with no decision value.

The candidate’s rights

The candidate must know that a check is being run, what it covers and how long the material will be retained. They may request access to information about themselves, have errors corrected and, absent a lawful basis, obtain deletion. A refusal to cooperate is not an admission: it is common among candidates who reasonably fear that an approach to their current employer would jeopardise their position.

The report should remain descriptive. It separates what is established, what is probable and what could not be verified. It expresses no judgement on the person and recommends no decision: that belongs to the employer, who bears the responsibility, including before an employment tribunal.

Retention is part of the design, not an afterthought. Material gathered for a recruitment that does not proceed should be destroyed on a defined schedule rather than kept as a precaution. A file that survives for years without purpose becomes, in the event of a dispute, the most fragile part of the employer’s position.

What screening does not replace

Prior enquiry reduces uncertainty; it does not predict conduct and offers no assurance of integrity. An unblemished record can precede a misappropriation, and an old incident may have no bearing on the role in question. Screening exists to decide with knowledge, not to buy reassurance cheaply.

If you must verify a profile before signature, or frame a control programme for a sensitive hire, an initial confidential consultation will define its scope, the admissible sources and the limits. It commits you to nothing. These pages are editorial information and do not constitute legal advice.