Background Check Dilemma: How Should HR Handle a Candidate's Misleading Employer Info?

A candidate has furnished his experience letter from a company where he was working as a contractor. The letter of experience he has furnished was given by his manager on a letterhead from the client company, which is not his direct employer. He hasn't produced any letter from the actual employer.

During the background check, we found that his actual employer is different from the employer he has shown. What should I do as a Human Resource person? How to deal with this situation.

Dear Ashima,

The candidate has furnished an experience letter from the principal employer, but you have discovered an inaccuracy in the name of the contracting agency that actually employed him. Have you sought clarification from him on this 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 there is nothing wrong with hiring such a person.

By the way, overall, the union government is encouraging the employment of contract workers. A time will come when the directly employed will be few and far between compared to the vast mass of contract workers. Should the contract workers forever be in a disadvantageous position? This is a point to ponder.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Misrepresentation of Facts in Employment

Should this fall under misrepresentation of facts in employment?

Dear Ashima,

Treat this as my reply to your message as well. Lately, it is very disheartening to note that many employment grievances ventilated through this forum stem from the subjective approach of HR personnel regarding post-selection background verification, as well as the misinterpretation of legal provisions in beneficial labor legislation. Viewing things with suspicion can lead to exponential doubts, causing unnecessary delays in appointing the right candidates.

Regarding your query, the candidate mentioned that their previous employment was contractual and provided an experience certificate from the manager of the principal employer, on the principal's official letterhead. Therefore, it cannot be considered a misrepresentation of facts, as the authenticity of their experience is clearly demonstrated by this certificate issued by their immediate employer. If you still have any doubts regarding procedural formalities, you can ask the contractor involved to confirm this.

Ashima, 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 provide more supporting evidence for their employment. Clarify the employment type and the correct entity that 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 reroute 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.

Thank you.

"Dear Umakant M Sir, coming to your query, the candidate mentioned that his previous employment was contractual, and he furnished an experience certificate from the manager of the principal employer, that too on the principal's official letterhead.

Clarification on the Principal Employer

Whom are you referring to as the principal employer, the client, or the contractor of the employee?

He has an experience letter from the client, not from the contractor."

Dear Ashima,

Understanding the Principal Employer

The Principal Employer is the client to whom he was deputed to work by the Contractor. By the way, you could have given the stage-wise complete details in chronological order as they occurred.

Steps to Address the Situation

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 on the premises of the Principal Employer, so and so. Was this the case?

2) If this was not the case and only through background verification did you discover that his actual employer was someone else, it amounts to a suppression of fact on the part of the candidate. It is then at your discretion whether to condone it or not.

3) If you are inclined to condone it as the suppression was not intentional but rather due to inadvertence, as I suggested earlier, you may directly correspond with the Contractor to verify his experience and additionally whether he was actually relieved by the client only upon his request after accepting any resignation submitted to him through the client.

Dear All,

This is a good discussion.

Dear Umakant Sir,

My situation is similar.

I have recently joined an IT MNC. Previously, I was working with an Indian company.

Here is my chronological representation of facts:

During the year 2008-09, I was working with a foreign MNC, let's say Company A, in New Zealand. I was not a direct employee of A but worked through another Indian company, let's call it Company B. After a year and a half, I left and returned to India, resigning from both companies.

Subsequently, I worked with two well-known brand names in India. When submitting my documents, I provided a letter from Company A, signed by my manager at Company A, certifying my experience. This was accepted everywhere.

I never stated anywhere that I was a contractor at Company A.

I followed the same process when joining the new IT MNC. I submitted a letter from my principal employer. However, during the background verification process, it failed as they were unable to obtain any data regarding my employment from Company A.

When questioned by the IT company, I explained that Company A was my client and B was my employer who sent me to New Zealand. I provided further documentation and stated that I had been using the same document at every step without much thought.

I am now being accused of "falsification of information," "forgery," and "misrepresentation of facts." The company intends to terminate my employment and refuses to provide a relieving or experience letter.

If this occurs, I may struggle to secure future employment, and the reputation I have built in my industry over 16 years may suffer.

Sir, could you please advise if I have any chance of fighting this case?

Regards,
Mirza

Dear Aziz,

Like in aesthetics, where beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in employment, ethics is in the attitude of the contracting party.

When a prospective employer requires you to disclose details of your previous employment, it is your duty to provide them accurately, without discretion for any reason.

Similarly, when the particulars of previous employment provided by a new employee are not fabricated but merely incomplete, the employer may view it as an omission rather than a lack of ethics warranting termination with stigma. The employer's refusal to provide an experience certificate adds insult to injury. However, one must remember that in an employment contract, the employer is typically the superior party, and employees should be aware of this in their pre-employment and post-employment transactions.

Therefore, in my considered opinion, you have two options: One is to seek an audience with the CEO, request leniency as the omission was unintentional, and either continue your services or resign gracefully with a service certificate. The other option, if the first proves futile, is to wait for termination and pursue legal action under the ID Act, 1947, if you are a workman, or otherwise, file a civil suit to declare the termination orders null and void. This second option may be a long legal battle, provided you have the time and resources.

My suggestion, therefore, would be to resolve the issue amicably to maintain your employability.