PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Business Mentor, Consultant And Trainer
Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Senior Hr Consultant
Use factoHR and automate your HR processes
Mobile-first hire to retire HR and Payroll software that automates all HR operations and works as a catalysts for your organisational growth.
Dinesh DivekarDear Ashima,
The candidate has furnished an experience letter from the principal employer but you have discovered the inaccuracy in the name of the contracting agency which had actually employed him. However, have you sought clarification from him on the inaccuracy? What is his take on furnishing the wrong details?
Anyway, the outsourced employee works under the nose of the principal employer, and obviously, the latter is expected to know more about the former. In contrast, the relationship between the contracting agency and its employees is transactional. Therefore, if the manager under whom the candidate worked, gives good feedback, then nothing wrong with hiring such a person.
By the way, overall the union government is encouraging the employment of the contract workers. A time will come when the directly employed will be few and far between compared with the vast mass of the contract workers. Therefore, should the contract workers forever be in a disadvantageous position? This is a point to ponder.
From India, Bangalore
ashima-nandaShould this come under misrepresentation of the fact for the employment.
From India, Pune
Treat this as my reply to your message too. Of late it is very disheartening to note that many employment grievances ventilated through this forum emanate from the subjective approach of the HR persons in the matter of post-selection back ground verification as well as misinterpretation of legal provisions of beneficial labor legislations. If things are viewed through the specs of suspicion, doubts would become exponential causing unnecessary delay in the process of appointment of right candidates.
Coming to your query, the candidate had mentioned that his previous employment was contractual and he furnished an experience certificate from the manager of the principal employer that too in the principal's official letter pad. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be misrepresentation of facts as the genuineness of his experience is amply proved by this certificate issued by his immediate employer and still if you do have any doubt as to the procedural formality in the process, you can ask the contractor concerned to corroborate this.
From India, Salem
p-lekha-jacobsAshima - this is a case of 'BGC Aberration'. It is not a negative BGC result. Please try to understand the difference.
Practical advice: Please follow-up with the candidate to furnish more supporting proofs for his employment. Please clarify the employment type and the correct entity who employed him/ her.
1. Do not mark BGC for him/ her as negative - it is not right.
2. Give the candidate ample opportunity to present his/ her case and then ask for more supporting documents.
3. Please re-route the BGC for this employment specifically. It needs to be validated again, simply.
4. Do not humiliate or victimize a candidate under any circumstance - it is not professionally right. It is not wise to lose a deserving candidate over just an aberration.
There is not always a right or wrong decision - it will depend on more information, supporting documents and facts, etc.
From India, Delhi
ashima-nandaDear Umakant M Sir
"Coming to your query, the candidate had mentioned that his previous employment was contractual and he furnished an experience certificate from the manager of the principal employer that too in the principal's official letter pad. "
Whom you are referring to Principal employer the cleint or the contractor of the employee.
He has experience letter from the client not from the contractor
From India, Pune
The Principal Employer is the client to whom he was deputed to work by the Contractor. By the by, you could have given the stage-wise complete details in the chronological order as they had occurred.
1) In his application for the job in your Company, he should have mentioned that his last appointment was as a contract employee of the Contractor so and so and deputed to work in the premises of the Principal Employer so and so. Was it so?
2) If it is not so and upon the back ground verification only you came to know that his actual employer was some one else, it amounts to suppression of fact on the part of the candidate. Then it is your discretion whether to condone it or not.
3) In case you are desirous of condoning it as the suppression was not intentional but by sheer inadvertence, as I suggested before you may directly correspond with the Contractor and ascertain his experience and in addition whether he was actually relieved by the client only as per his request after accepting his resignation, if any submitted to him through the client.
From India, Salem
ashima-nandaThank you sir for your guidance.
From India, Pune
This is a good discussion.
Dear Umakant Sir
My situation is simillar.
I have joined an IT MNC recently.
Previously I was working with an Indian Company.
This is my chronological representation of facts.
During the year 2008-09 I was working with a foreign MNC say A in Newzealand. I was not a direct employee of A, but worked through another Indian company say B. After a year and a half I left and came back to India resigned from both the companies.
Then I was working with 2 BIG brand names in INDIA. During my document submission I produce a letter from company A duly signed by my manager of Company A and certifying my experience. And everywhere it got accepted.
I never mentioned any where that I was a contractor in company A.
Same I did in the newly joined IT MNC. This time around I did the same thing I submitted letter, which was from my Principal employer. Now the situation is that. My Background verification failed as they reached out to company A and the HR failed to get any data regarding my employment.
When this IT company asked explanation I have quoted that company A was my client and B is my employer who has sent me to NZ. furnished further documents. And I quoted
that I have been producing the same doc every where so here also I gave the doc in the same flow without any thought.
I being charged with "falsification of information" "furgery" and "misrepresentation of facts".
And company wants to terminate me.
And saying I will neither get any reliving nor experience letter.
If this is the case then I may not get any job and the image I have created in my industry will tarnish after working for 16 years.
Sir please suggest do I have any fighting chance for this case or not.
From India, Pune
Like in aesthetics, beauty is in the beholder's eye, in employment, ethics is in the contracting party's attitude.
When you are required by the prospective employer to disclose the details of your previous employment, it is your duty to disclose them as they were and not according to your discretion for whatever reasons.
Similarly, when the particulars of previous employment furnished by a new employee is not concocted but only incomplete, the employer can view it as a mere omission in the nature of non-compliance but not as a lack of ethics resulting in independebility so as to warrant the extreme punishment of termination with stigma. And the employer's refusal to give experience certificate is like adding insult to injury. But one should remember always that in a contract of employment, unfortunately, the employer is a superior party and particularly the employee has to be beware of this in his transactions both pre-employment and post-employment.
Therefore, in my considered opinion, only two options are before you:-
One is seeking an audience with the CEO and requesting lenience as the omission was purely unintentional and continue your services or to permit you to resign gracefully with a service certificate.
The other is that in case the above attempt proves to be futile, wait till your termination and agitate it legally under the ID Act,1947 if you are a workman or if otherwise, institute a Civil Suit to declare the orders of termination null and void and get a declaration to that effect. Of course the second option would be a long-drawn legal battle provided you have the time and wherewithal.
My suggestion, therefore, would be to sort out the issue amicably so as to retain your employability intact.
From India, Salem