Navigating Dual Employment Concerns: Could My Friend Face Termination Over Past Job Overlaps?

One of my friends joined a company two months ago. He submitted all the relevant documents provided at the time of joining.

Employment History

His first job was at Company A, where he worked for five years. He resigned on 10th December and left the company on 15th December 2015. He didn't serve the notice period. His dues were cleared a few months later, and a year later, he received a relieving letter from the company with the date of relieving mentioned as 1st January 2016. However, it is also mentioned in the letter that he stopped working from 15th December. No money was paid to him after 15th December, but he has no proof for the same to show.

Subsequent Employment

He got a job at Company B and joined on 21st December 2015. There were no issues with his previous work experience, only resignation acceptance was required from the previous company. He worked there for three years and then resigned, serving his full notice period.

Current Situation

Now, he has switched jobs again and joined Company C in 2018. All the documents were submitted before joining, along with the relieving letter from Company A. However, after 1.5 months of joining, HR is saying that he didn't serve the full notice period in Company A and is also accounting for dual employment. It's been two months since his joining, and the decision is still pending.

Potential Consequences

Could this be a case of termination? What could be the consequences?

But the employee has joined 2 months ago and has been in training. All his managers are satisfied with his performance. Only HR is creating an issue.

Dear Abhilasha,

I think that the HR of Company-C seems to be an over-enthusiastic person digging deep into the past unnecessarily. When Company-A mentions the fact that although his relieving date was 1st January 2016, he stopped working from 15th December 2015. Therefore, his service under them actually ended on 15-12-2015 itself. Naturally, his terminal benefits settled later would have been calculated up to 15-12-2015 only and paid by them. He joined the next Company-B on 21st December 2015, i.e., prior to the release of the belated official relieving letter dated 01-01-2016 as per your post.

Since there is no mention in the post about the reaction of Company-B to this issue, one has to presume that no issue was raised by Company-B perhaps because of the reason that he would have been a perfect choice for them, which is also vindicated by the fact that the individual had subsequently served it for 3 years and had a smooth separation. Had the individual mentioned all these facts in the same chronological order in his resume, the gap between 16-12-2015 and 20-12-2015 could be convincingly explained as the period of non-employment only and certainly not a phase of dual employment.

One cannot say exactly whether it would result in his termination or not. It depends on the Management. That's why it is insisted that when switching jobs, every employee should strictly abide by the notice conditions of the contract of employment. Of course, no doubt, HR can influence the decision-making process, but the Management can adopt a different view based on the employment potential of your friend. Therefore, your friend can seek an audience with the CEO of the present organization and make a polite representation in this regard.

Hello,

Thank you for sharing your views. It's been 2 months since his joining, and no decision has been made yet. An offer was made to him 1 month before his joining, giving them enough time to conduct the background check. However, now that he has joined, HR is creating an issue.

HR's leniency in employment verification

It's obvious that HR is being lenient. Normally, many HR departments insist that an employee must produce a relieving letter from their previous employer. However, for various reasons, some employers bypass this requirement and find themselves in such situations.

If an employee has been allowed to report for duty with 'C', it is reasonable to overlook the issue as long as their performance is satisfactory, unless and until the previous employer sends an alert regarding the past service requirement. The irony in this case is that despite submitting the relieving letter from 'A', there should be no question about not serving the notice period in 'A'. Such justifications may be considered as an afterthought.

Therefore, by relying on the relieving letter from 'A', the employee can continue with 'C'. Hopefully, there will be no further objections from 'B' similar to this one, and the situation with 'C' will remain stable for now.