Interactive scenario: Background checks

[meyer475]

HR Manager Paige Down recommended Andy Smith for promotion to Vice President and Assistant Controller. Andy had been with the company for over 10 years and consistently ranked as one of its top performers. When she got the results of a background check on Andy, Paige learned that 15 years ago Andy had been convicted in another state of forgery and passing bad checks. Obviously he'd never mentioned that on his job application, and Paige knew that falsifying a job application was grounds for dismissal. What key issues should Paige be thinking about? And what should she do?

To give your answer, hit "reply."

Odd that the background check would be done after the promotion. But now the HR person has information that shows the guy lied on his application, and that lie is directly related to his position. Unless the HR person is willing to give up on being able to act on this type of information with other applicants or employees, action needs to be taken. Unless the controller has mitigating information, he needs to be discharged for submitting false information.

I think the first thing Paige should do is to consult with the company's recruting or employee relations manager on the matter. Next, check Andy's application against the information she's found to ensure there is no error and then proceed to have a conversation (not a confrontation) with Andy. Obviously with those kinds of charges, the promotion is out, however, let's take some things into consideration. The policy says that lying on the application is grounds for dismissal. Did he lie or did he omit the information? Is Andy a valued employee? He's one of their top performers with an established track record of contribution. Obviously this information is grounds enough not to promote Andy. You can't now put him in charge of anything that gives him authority over finance or checkwriting. But it is also not to say that a cloud of suspicion should be permanently affixed to every expense report, timesheet or request for reimbursement he submits. Andy has proven himself as a valued, loyal, honest employee who has a background with some unfavorable information in it. Should his reward for rehabilitating himself and becoming a contributing member of society be to now kick him in the shins and send him back to square one? Depending on how its handled, Andy (having been exposed), may leave on his own. This could be a win/win situation for everyone involved. Should there be some sanctions? Absolutely. Let's figure out what's legal and help an employee who has been helping the Company for over a decade keep his job.

[Joyce]

I would try to find out more details about the conviction and then talk to the company President. Sometimes, the brief information that is given can be deceiving. I would also ask the background checking company to confirm the identity of the person. With stolen identities, etc, I would make very sure that I have all the available information and that it is correct before proceeding with any action. I also think the company should search it's history to determine what may have been done in similar situations.

Once all the information has been received, I would suggest working with the Company President to determine a course of action. I would also ask the employee if they would like to explain and confirm the findings of the background checking firm. Once you have the employees side of the story, you will have to make a decision. If you would terminate another employee in a similar situation, perhaps you have no choice.

I would do another background check using another service to confirm the infomation. If confirmed, I would check with legal counsel on how to proceed. However, considering the fact that Andy is working within the financial function of the company & was convicted of forgery & bad checks previously & did not disclose these facts when he applied for employment or was promoted, the company would be within it's rights to address the matter, to include termination of employment.

[wanda]

I would directly contact the company who did the back ground check to confirm their findings, and I would consider using another company for a second check. If all findings came out with the same results, a meeting should be called with his senior manager,couselor, and president of the company. Even through the years he has been a valuable employee, you would always be looking over his shoulders wondering if what you know now will hinder your decision on his future rule.

Take off those rose colored glasses, Benefit, this is the real world now. If you rob a bank and 15 years later return the money, you still robbed the bank. Poor decisions result in adverse consequences and this man made a conscious decision to withhold extremely important information. Would you give Kenneth Lay another shot because he once made millions for his stockholders in spite of the fact that he subsequently sold them down the river? I didn't think so.

If the information is accurate and it should be researched until there is no doubt, the man should be advised of the Company's findings and offered a chance to resign. If he refuses, then discharging him is the only option. Harsh, yes, but absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the Company, its stockholders and its employees.

First, double check the information received thru a second source. If information is verified then review policies and practices related to misrepresentations on application. Since person has been employed for 10 years wiht clean record this needs to be considered. The offense of omitting or misrepresenting information on his application should be considered along with the criminal record against the hiring requirements. In other words if we were recruiting externally and discovered the same record would we not hire the person. I suspect the answer is we would not therefore, we should not promote this chap. However, based on his employment history with the firm and their actual practice in similar situations it may not warrant terminating him. One last thought is that I am presuming that it is a consistent practice to run a background check on all promotions or for similar placed positions. If not then there is another issue around potential discrimination.

symantec client firewall ver 5 2360 credit du nord gezlzg mid states services cca 520 effects of vioxx and celebrex 553455