Is It Fair for HR to Ban an Ex-Employee Over a Misunderstanding? Let's Discuss

This is something that happened with one of my friends. As he wanted to pursue further studies, he resigned from the company he was working with for almost 4 years. The due notice periods and all the exit formalities went out smoothly with due settlements. He kept in touch with his ex-colleagues, with whom he was friends, and the GM-HR of the company offered him to join back after 5 months of resignation but at the same position. My friend was interested in joining back at a better position.

A couple of months later, he got a better opportunity with another company but without any hike in salary, which was badly needed by him due to the bad financial conditions of his family. He was desperate, so he approached his ex-colleagues/friends, seeking their guidance. In talks, he mentioned that if he had blank letterheads of the company, he would have made a fake salary slip to get a hike. The ex-colleagues went and informed the GM-HR that my friend was looking for blank letterheads, for which the GM-HR took strict action "banning entry" of my friend in the office premises and sent an email to everyone in the Head Office to cut all contacts with him, warning of strict action if they did not comply.

Is this action by the GM-HR correct?

Although I always take the side of employees, in this case, I agree with the GM-HR. Although his decision doesn't affect much, he made the right decision. I never support people who take such steps to progress. Unfair means may help him, but a good professional should believe in himself, not in fraud.

He may say that he agrees to join there on the same salary. However, if the management is satisfied with his performance, his salary should be raised after 6 months, or he should be given a good appraisal on the next salary revision. This will demonstrate professionalism, and they will appreciate it.

So, just explain to your friend that nothing is better than something. If his fraud is caught at any point in the future, it could affect his career more. Be sincere.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in the scenario. First, you mentioned that your friend left the job to pursue higher studies. However, there is no information about why he did not join any course. Did he approach the company for a job, or did the company offer him a job after 5 months? If he had approached the firm, the firm was in a bargaining position and was right in offering him a job at the same level.

It appears that he did not take up that offer and was looking for a better job, even after 2 months of being offered a job. That means he has been out of a job for nearly 7 months. One would have thought that if his family was in a bad financial position, any job would be better than none. The mere fact that he expressed that he was willing to falsify records has put him in a bad light with his ex-company, and he will not get a job there.

Questioning the GM-HR's Actions

Which action of the GM-HR are you questioning? Prohibiting access to your friend to the company premises is right. What employees do outside their working hours cannot be controlled. It may be a way of telling people to beware of falling into bad companies, lest they should be tempted.

Regards.

I completely agree with Bhuwan C Ary and Nashbramhall. Your query has lots of loopholes, and it seems that your friend has not been honest with you. The decision of the GM-HR is right because everyone has the right to safeguard their interests and benefits.