|
He
was finally discharged from Perro when three office employees
forcibly prevented him from assaulting a female supervisor and it
was found Mr. Weird had a concealed firearm on his person. Mr.
Weird then applied for a position at the Oso Blanco Corporation and
during the background check, the Perro Company refused to provide
any information on Mr. Weird, except to confirm his dates of
employment. The third day on his new job, Joe Weird went berserk,
shooting and killing Ms. Chula, his supervisor, then turning the gun
on himself. The police investigation here, would likely reveal
Mr. Weird's history of violence at the Perro Company and Ms. Chula's
heirs and Oso Blanco would have a good basis to litigate against
Perro for negligent referral.
The only situations a company really creates exposure for itself is
when negative information provided on former employees is
subjective. Comments such as, "We got rid of him because
he wasn't much good," or "She was a lousy worker,"
can inspire legal recourse.
Telling the truth about former employees, when documentation exists,
is not a cause for concern. Some time ago, Forbes magazine had
an interesting article which elaborated on this subject and might be
worth looking up. As I recall, the title of the article was,
"What If The Guy Kills Someone?" Businesses which
have this non disclosure policy might be well advised to discuss
this with a competent attorney specializing in labor law--not
corporate counselors or general practice lawyers, many of whom have
bought into this urban myth themselves.
Q. In cases where a former
employer only confirms dates, why is an L.P.C,. Ltd. background
check of any value?
A. Even though the policy of
the former employer may be quite restrictive, often experienced
L.P.C., Ltd. investigators can get them to open up some. One
additional question most companies will answer is whether or not the
person is eligible for reemployment. If the answer is no,
unlike some of our competitors, we take it a step farther by
determining whether there is a company policy prohibiting rehiring
of any former employees. While being classified ineligible for
reemployment sounds negative on the surface, many companies have a
consistent policy of never rehiring persons who resign.
Additionally, there are often other ways to circumvent these
outdated policies. If the client company uses applications
which are detailed, often the applicant's former supervisor or
department is identified. In most cases an accurate picture of
the applicant's accomplishments and deficiencies can be obtained
from the person who had direct supervision over the applicant--and
in most cases these folks couldn't care less about official company
policy. Even when H.R. is willing to provide basic
information, the brief checklists they may work from seldom prove
near as valuable as a floor supervisor's candid comments. For
instance H.R. might state the applicant was evaluated as a good
worker, but the applicant's supervisor might go farther, saying the
applicant worked well without supervision, volunteered for tough
jobs, provided beneficial suggestions, enjoyed training new workers
and had obvious potential for advancement.
Q. In conducting a background
check for employment, what should be checked?
A. This, of course, varies
significantly with client's desires, specific client |
|
