How to tell fact from fiction on a résumé
By Claire Smith
Published: May 28 2007 17:32 | Last updated: May 28 2007 17:32
When a leading UK call-centre operator discovered one of its new telephone sales staff suffered from a fear of embarrassing situations, it called in the lawyers.
In her job application, the employee signed a medical form declaring she had a clean bill of health. On discovery of a condition that stopped her cold-calling potential customers, the company felt it had been duped. But in an age when fibbing on a curriculum vitae is believed to be widely practised, the legal advice was that it would be difficult to dismiss her for lying.
“People can say, ‘You don’t like me because I have a disability and it is nothing to do with the lie on the job application’,” says Sue Ashtiany, an employment partner with Nabarro, a UK law firm. “It is very hard for the employer to prove they have lost confidence in someone because of the initial untruth.”
This year, a survey by Water for Fish, a human resources consultancy, found 48 per cent of UK workers exaggerated in job applications. Asking more than 1,000 employed adults, it found the most popular fibs included embellishments of sporting achievements and charitable or community work. More serious deceit involved qualifications, discrepancies in employment and academic dates and keeping quiet about legal judgments and previous directorships. But while it is perfectly legal for a prospective employer to check a candidate’s qualifications, few do.
Owen Warnock, a partner in the human resources department at UK law firm Eversheds, says: “A great many employers just don’t check the information they are given and that’s why employees tend to either exaggerate or remove things from their CV that are unfavourable.”
He says prospective employers can call a university or previous employer to verify details or even hire private investigators. “Checking rubbish bins is unlikely to be useful but is probably lawful while phone tapping clearly isn’t,” he says. “Most of what private investigators do, which is just talking to people, is entirely legal. There’s no law stopping you from asking questions.” But he does advise telling a candidate of any background checks in order to avoid embarrassment if they find out independently.
Much of what drives employers to hire agencies to perform background checks on job applicants is a move towards stricter policies on giving references. After job candidates in a number of countries successfully sued former employers for loss of earnings caused by unfavourable references, companies increasingly confirm little more than duration of employment.
Ms Ashtiany says: “In financial services, regulators require employers to be open and honest in their references for people conducting regulated work but, otherwise, a lot of employers just give bare-minimum references.”
Failure to check on a job candidate can count against a company if a lie is uncovered after someone has been appointed. After a year, workers in the UK have unfair dismissal rights. If it is then found that someone does not have the degree they claimed, employers still have to prove they can’t do the job before sacking them.
Trevor Gibson, a partner at UK law firm Wragge & Co, cites a recent case in which a company appointed a director without checking references. The job offer was not made conditional on satisfactory references, which meant that, when flaws were found in the application before the employment started, dismissal procedures had to be followed as if the individual was already employed.
Irregularities are often uncovered only after a period of poor performance in employment sparks disciplinary proceedings. “In a very high proportion of cases, where something goes wrong in the first year of employment, you go back to the recruitment process and find there was perhaps a long unexplained gap in the work history that wasn’t picked up or that references weren’t checked,” Ms Ashtiany says.
But while checks can prevent mishaps, discrimination cannot be justified by a lie on a CV. If an employer discovers it has taken on a trade union activist or a pregnant woman despite being told otherwise in interview, that untruth is unlikely to convince a tribunal that a sacking is fair.
“The typical case involves someone claiming something in their job history that isn’t true,” says Mr Warnock, “or covering up for a period of unemployment by making up a job. You can find out all that by checking with former employers.”
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Comments