Pre-employment Background Checks 5 Reasons Why Smbs Should Conduct Them

blogger /

Labor experts tell us that 8 out of 10 hiring professionals do some form of pre-employment background screening. Yet many medium and small businesses and are still dependent on traditional methods of pre-employment background screening, such as checking up on references. This article explores why many SMBs avoid professional employment background checks, and the risks and dangers of doing so.

Why Many SMBs Don’t Do Pre-Employment Background Screening

Lack of concern. Some SMB managers believe that only cops, teachers, and doctors should be subject to employment background checks. That point of view is outdated. Nowadays, many private companies are consistently performing pre-employment background screening, for the reasons listed in the second half of this article.

Lack of Internal Support and Expert Knowledge. Many SMB leaders assume that any pre-employment background screening they do must be done in-house. The prospect of training an employee to carry out background checks is intimidating to most managers, especially since it could very well take a person months to research the best background check procedures. However, partnering with pre-employment background screening outsourcing firms allows all companies quick, convenient access to employment background checks.

Overestimation of Cost. Many SMB leaders hold a misconception about pre-employment background screening, namely that it’s exorbitantly expensive. If you’re open to the possibility of outsourcing your employment background checks, you can typically conduct pre-employment background screening for no more than $50 per job candidate.

Top 5 Reasons Why SMBs should Conduct Employment Background Checks

1. Decreased Costs. You’ll find better job candidates if you conduct pre-employment background screening. Improved hiring means that you’ll spend less money counteracting negative PR, lose less money to negligent hiring lawsuits, and see fewer employee-generated losses, such as embezzlement. Finally, it’s typically much less expensive to outsource employment background checks, rather than doing them in-house.

2. Fewer legal trip-ups. Each state has its own law in place regarding negligent hiring. These laws are intended to protect the public by preventing dangerous individuals from being hired for delicate positions. As an example, many states’ alcohol laws require that employees have three years of felony-free history before they can be hired for a job that involves serving alcohol. Failing to check out candidates backgrounds through pre-employment background screening opens you to the risk of being sued or fined for failing to do your due diligence on new hires.

3. Safer Employees. Human Resource gurus estimate that 1 out of 10 job applicants have a criminal history. If you don’t carry do employment background checks, it’s more likely that you’ll hire a dangerous individual who could hurt your employees, your customers, and your business’ reputation.

4. Accelerated hiring. The majority of pre-employment background screening companies offer results in 48 hours. In this sense, outsourcing employee background checks can mean speedier hiring. In just a day or two, you can get the information you need to determine if that seemingly perfect candidate has any skeletons lurking in his or her closet.

5. Discover dishonesty in applications. Here’s another scary HR statistic for you: researchers calculate that approximately 4 out of 10 resumes feature deceitful omissions, if not total lies. Employment background checks reveal such dishonesty so that you can avoid hiring mendacious individuals.

As we’ve seen, there are many reasons why owners of small and medium-sized businesses should arrange employee background checks.

An Employment Solicitors Guide To Constructive Dismissal

blogger /

Constructive dismissal is a frequently misunderstood term – but if your employer behaves in a way that means that you feel you have to leave your job, you might be able to claim constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal takes place when an employee terminates their employment because the employer’s conduct is such as to make it unbearable for the employee to continue in their employment. This behaviour must be so serious that it can be classed as a breach of contract i.e. behaviour that gives the employee the belief that their employment contract has been terminated.

Constructive dismissal need not relate to one particular event, it can also apply to a string of events. Constructive dismissal claims relate to the employer’s breach of express of implied terms of your employment contract. This could include the advertisement for your job, something laid out in the staff handbook or the terms and conditions written in your contract. It can include breach of implied terms, like an employer’s duty of care towards its employees or duty to act reasonably.

You could claim constructive dismissal if your employer has reduced your wages, amended your job description or your hours and place of work, or ignored a request to improve bad working conditions.

Examples of a severe breach of an implied term amounting to constructive dismissal would include; an employer making it impossible for you to do your job effectively, not giving you the support required to carry out your work without interference or harassment from colleagues, or wrongly accusing you of theft with no evidence to support the accusation.

In order to claim constructive dismissal you must have had one year’s continuous employment. If you have less than one year’s continuous employment, you could still claim constructive dismissal if you are able establish that your employment was terminated for an automatically unfair reason.

You should raise a formal grievance if you are unhappy with how your employer is treating you. Clarify exactly what is making you unhappy. Following the ACAS Code of Practice, your employer should then arrange a formal meeting, without unreasonable delay, to discuss the grievance. Being helpful and reasonable during negotiations with your employer might help resolve the problem. Employment Tribunals are frequently more sympathetic toward employees who have attempted to settle or mediate problems before going to a tribunal.

Experienced employment solicitors appreciate that those employees who find themselves in a situation where they are likely to make a claim for constructive dismissal, are often suffering from anxiety, stress or even depression. You should seek medical advice if you think you may be suffering from any of these conditions andbe sure to let your employer know the reasons for your absence.

Time limits for an Employment Tribunal

You must leave within a reasonable time of the breach – do not delay. You then have a strict 3 month period from the date you left to file an employment tribunal claim. An Employment Tribunal may interpret your delay as having accepted the changes in your contract – the main point about constructive dismissal is that the situation has become such that it is simply impossible to continue your employment.

Although feeling that you have no alternative than to resign, and subsequently doing so, may constitute constructive dismissal you should take legal advice on your individual situation before handing in your notice unless your conditions are entirely intolerable, in which case seek legal advice immediately thereafter. Employment law is complex and it is always important to get specific legal advice from an experienced employment solicitor on employment law problems and constructive dismissal cases in particular.

Different Situation That May Require To Hire Employment Lawyers Ottawa

blogger /

The knowledge and skills of employment lawyers Ottawa makes them the best advicer to solve different situations that may arise at a place of work.
Regardless of whether you are an employee or employer in Ottawa, you will discover that the employment lawyers Ottawa are the only skilled professionals who can help you to protect your rights at work. Employment law is a wide area and full of legal guidelines and requirements, it is forever appropriate to look for an advice that would be good to make certain that your rights are not getting infringed. There are different circumstances in which employment lawyers are needed, like:
1.If a manager wishes to discharge an employee for the reason that there has been a substantial drop in their presentation that has not enhanced, or that they have been trapped breaking any company regulations or even for any other lawful reason, employment lawyers can make sure that this is done officially and without any ramifications for the employer.
2.When unfairness has occurred in the place of work (in terms of skin color, age, religion, sexuality, gender, and so on), employment lawyers can assist you to attempt and tenacity regarding the issues at work and, if by any chance this doesnt work they will try to take up more steps till you get your rights back.
3.On instance, an employee’s previous contract gets changed due to an endorsement, demotion or alters in the business’s policy and guidelines. In these state of affairs, employment lawyers Ottawa read over the latest contract to confirm that there are no dodges and that in cooperation the employee and employer are confined against mistreatment.
4.At whatever time a staff handbook is altered, it can be extremely helpful for an employment lawyer to glance over it, as doing this can facilitate to keep away from any misinterpretations or deceptive information getting all the way through. They will as well make certain that these credentials are lawfully binding.
Thus, we can see that there are several scenarios that can be up to a great extent gets benefits due to the involvement of skilled employment lawyers Ottawa. Their skills and experience can be of great value at the time of preventing mistreatment at the place of work, which may also prove vital to safe the rights of both the employee as well as the employer. There may be many people who may offer valuable advices to escape from such a troublesome work situation but there is one fact that it is only the employment lawyer who would be the best among all.

Importance Of Race Relation Act Questionnaire Rr65 Demonstrated By Banco Santander Group

blogger /

The importance of the Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is highlighted by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) UK legal case, where the Employment Tribunal made a finding of race discrimination, which subsequently led to the record-breaking compensation award of 2.8 million. In 2006, Abbey National Santander Group (the Spanish-owned UK high street bank which will soon be re-branded as Santander, and is part of the Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment, giving redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger believed, however, that the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Santander Abbey National Group employed Mr Chagger (who was of Indian origin) as a Trading Risk Controller and paid him about 100,000 per annum. He reported into Nigel Hopkins.

Employees who believe they have suffered race discrimination at work and are considering pursuing legal action may serve a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 upon the employer. The Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 procedure is set out in the Race Relations Act (Questions and Replies) Order 1977.

The employee serves his questionnaire upon the employer via form RR65. It contains some standard questions, such as to what extend does the employer concur with the employee’s version of events, what is the employer’s version of events, and does the employer accept that the employee has suffered discrimination (and if not, then why not). The employee may attach his own specific questions to the end of the standard questions.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is not a necessary step in dealing with the discrimination via formal legal proceedings; it is optional. But, it is a step that gives the employee a unique chance to collect evidence in support of his case (because it permits the inclusion of questions of an exploratory nature), as well as, to obtain further information useful in deciding whether to proceed with legal action or not. Therefore, the employee should seriously consider serving a questionnaire, and design the questions to uncover evidence that proves race discrimination which is known only to the employer, uncover fully the employer’s case, and ascertain which facts are accepted by the employer and which are in dispute.

The employer must respond to the questionnaire in writing within a reasonable time period (8 weeks from the date the of receipt). The employer’s answers can be submitted as evidence before an Employment Tribunal. The employer does not have to answer the questionnaire, and cannot be ordered to respond to it by an Employment Tribunal. But, failure to respond within the time limit and/or ambiguous or evasive responses may be held against the employer. Where an Employment Tribunal believes the employer deliberately and without good reason did not respond within the time limit and/or the responses were evasive or ambiguous, the Race Relations Act 1976 allows the Employment Tribunal to draw any adverse inferences it considers just and equitable, including the inference that the employer committed an unlawful act of discrimination. Thus, an Employment Tribunal could make a finding of race discrimination based solely on the adverse inferences it has drawn regarding the questionnaire; although, in reality, it is unlikely to do that, it could decide to take a serious stance on the employer’s failure to respond properly and be persuaded by it, along with other evidence. The chance of the Employment Tribunal drawing adverse inferences will be increased if the employee had asked reasonable questions and had made efforts to chase the employer and encouraged it to respond properly. The employer will not know the consequences of its failures before it faces the Employment Tribunal, at which time it may be too late for the employer to make good any failings. Thus, an employee who avails himself of the questionnaire procedure automatically gains this tactical advantage.

Such was the situation Santander Abbey National had got itself into. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Santander had failed in answering Mr Chagger’s questionnaire. Mr Chagger had asked Santander Abbey National to supply details of legal actions of racial discrimination brought against it since 1 January 2001. Abbey Santander responded with 17 citations of incidents. In respect of 6 of them, dating from 2001 and 2002, Santander Abbey National simply stated that the outcomes of the actions were unknown and that it was unable to obtain information regarding the outcomes during the time period in which the questionnaire had to be responded to; no further answers were ever provided to Mr Chagger. The Employment Tribunal concluded that Santander Abbey National’s response was evasive. Its failure to answer the questionnaire, along with the other evidence in the case, satisfied the Employment Tribunal that Mr Hopkins and Abbey National Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 by the employee does not in itself start off any legal proceedings; the initiation of legal proceedings requires a separate procedure. If no legal proceedings are ever initiated, then the employee’s questionnaire and the employer’s responses remain a private matter between the employer and employee. If the employee is seriously contemplating legal action based on the other evidence that suggests race discrimination, then serving a Race Relations Act Questionnaire would be appropriate, because the employer’s response may help the employee to decide. But, if the employee does not have any serious intentions regarding legal action, then to serve a questionnaire would be inappropriate because doing so may unnecessarily vex the employer and/or the responses may affect the employee emotionally into pursuing a legal action he didn’t intend to pursue.

The Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage. In 2008, it was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This year, 2009, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (being the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the appeal was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records and judgement of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was only about compensation (not racial discrimination as well). So, this would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey National Santander and Nigel Hopkins has been settled by the EAT (it had upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal).

Employment Background Check Procedures Are Vital For Pre Employment Screening

blogger /

Using background checks as part of your pre employment procedure

When you are hiring people you have a vested interest in getting the very best of the available applicants. You want to find the best because you are choosing people that are hopefully going to be working with you, possibly for many years. Why do you think it is then that many employers fail to do even the simplest of background checks on new employees? Don’t you want to know if they are actually who they say they are? Sort out a pre employment background check procedure now and stick to them.

Enhancing your accomplishments or lying on resumes to get a job is nothing new but it does seem to be getting worse as time goes by and as you might expect, it gets worse at times when jobs are scarce. Don’t skip the essential and often simple, background checks that you should be doing to ensure you have an accurate and truthful assessment of the applicant who wants to work with you.

Get permission from the candidate

To avoid future legal problems you should make sure that your candidate has signed a comprehensive waiver allowing you to obtain any private information that you may require. It is best to use a statement prepared by a legal expert for this purpose but it is standard procedure so it should not be a problem.

Is a reference check the same as a background check?

Many people are either confused about the difference between reference and background checks or they think that they are the same thing. They are not. A reference in this context is a person who has worked with your candidate sometime in the previous 7 years and who is prepared to talk to you about them. You need 3 references to get a good picture of the person.

Background checks can reveal the authenticity of the applicants details and statements. Important for checking that the person hasn’t been lying to you or leaving out important facts.

Here are some of the more important checks for your background procedure.

Court records, criminal records, arrest warrants etc.

Check with state or county court records in all the places that they have lived or worked in the past few years. This might uncover criminal records or arrest warrants etc. You should also check in states and counties adjacent to where they lived or worked also.

Drivers License

You only need to do this if the employee is required to do any driving. If it does then take the license and check its validity by giving the issuing agency a call.

Credit checks

If the job has got anything to do with money then you should do a credit check. For most posts that are not concerned with money or finance in any way then a credit check may be of not be worth doing.

Other Licences

It seems that the more respected is the profession, the less inclined employers are to check that licenses to operate in that profession are valid. It sounds incredible but it is possible to find yourself treated by an unlicensed employee simply because noone bothered to check that the license was current and valid.

Academic credentials

Sometimes I think that everyone except me lies about their academic achievements on their resume. They do it and get away with it because employers don’t include it in their employment background check procedures and if they do then it usually gets ignored. You should at least check that the qualification claimed was in fact obtained by calling the issuing body ask asking for verification.

Use a public records database to get your employment background checks started

The easiest form of background check can be done online easily and quickly. By using a web site that gathers public records such as criminal records, arrest warrants, sex offender records and other information you can often get information about your applicant very quickly. You may not want to rely on it as your only source of information but it can make an important addition to your standard employment background check procedure.