Stephen was kind enough to provide me copies of the model policy and, even for the US, it is exceptionally thorough. Here are some thoughts/observations from both a practical and operational standpoint:
1. The policy should emphasize that ALL employees are subject to search. This would include Senior Management. Executives must set the example and they should also be considered simply another employee under the random search policy.
2. The policy should include the ability to search for weapons. This is truly an issue in the US. Weapons should be defined by company policy but may also include personal defensive weapons such as chemical irritants (Mace) and Tasers (yes, there is a personal version).
3. Define search. This is more for the training of the security personnel but how far should they go? In most cases, I recommend that only a visual inspection be conducted. So that limits the inspection of a purse or backpack to only what can be seen without disturbing the contents.
4. It would be interesting to see the companion procedure on this topic for security personnel. I would highly recommend that a policy be written even there are no security staff. This should be for guidelines for supervisors and managers.
5. There is no mention of searches without the employee present. If a company receives a call that a locker contains a firearm (or something else of a critical nature)and the employee is not there, how is that procedure handled and does an employee have the right to refuse to have a locker or other area searched when the search is for cause? In my opinion, there is no option. Can your company cut the lock off of a locker?
6. I have an opposing opinion on allowing HR to decide if an excuse to not be searched is "reasonable". This is too important a policy to allow acceptance of a protest. All efforts should be made to complete the search in the most private and professional of manners. If that is done properly, the employee should not have grounds to refuse unless they understand it is dismissal.
7. Employees should be offered to explain why they are in possession of "X" but ultimately it should be in the form of a voluntary written statement.

Search policies are easy to write. The problems begin with improperly trained "searchers". Additionally, the use of educational posters in break rooms, reminders in news letters, and open discussion in meetings is critical for success.

Pat Murphy
President
LPT Security Consulting
Houston, Texas

Thanks for your comments, Pat. It's very interesting to get a US perspective.

As reported on XpertHR last year [subscription required], weapons in the workplace isn't (yet) a major issue for UK employers. In a few years' time, we may need a model policy on our site.

I think UK employers would be very wary of searching an employee's locker etc without him or her being present, because of the human rights implications.

And because of the human rights issues (not to mention the possibility of an unfair dismissal), UK employers need to tread very carefully if an employee doesn't give consent to carry out the search. Our policy therefore gives employees the opportunity to refuse to be searched and to give an explanation for the refusal.

We deliberately haven't gone into great detail about how security officers actually carry out the searches (for example searching bags without disturbing contents), as it is a little outside the scope of the guidance that a HR manager or line manager would need. As you say, this is more of an issue when training security staff.