• Replies 18 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 12567 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Reference details and CV do not match

Fiona

Hi - I wonder if I can have some feedback on a situation I find myself in?

I have recently recruited an HR Officer and they are in their probation period. We ask for two references as a condition of our offer and they have come back. One from the employee's last employer and one from the previous to last employer.

Both of the previous employers are Law Firms. The previous to last employer reference came back with a different role title and different date range (two years difference) to what has been written on the employee's CV, and they also stated the employee worked in a part-time capacity; not what had been written on the CV.

I phoned the referee to discuss their reference as I initially thought it was a mix up however they would not take my call and asked me to put my subsequent questions in writing. I wrote to the referee and explained that there may have been a mix up and could they please confirm that the reference they gave was correct - they wrote back to say it was correct and reflected what they had on file for the employee in question.

I explained this dilemma to the employee, they said it was a mistake and I asked if they wouldn't mind contacting the referee directly and asking them to cc me into the email me with a response. The employee agreed and said she would contact them straight away.

However the next day I got an email from the employee who had gone to her last employer and asked the person who provided a reference for them to look into the historical employment files they had and pull out the reference they had got from their previous to last employer when they took the job with them, and send it on to them so they could forward it to me as proof of their role at the previous to last employer. 

I now have the reference - the dates are still not accurate and the role title is more reflective of the role they have on their CV but not 100%  however I am uncomfortable using this because the person that wrote it back in 2013 no longer works for the Law firm that provided it. 

They also stated they had CIPD - Level 5 however when I revisited this and asked for proof as we still hadn't had it, they stated it was completed back in 1989/1990 and that the courses were called a different thing and they didn't have certified proof because IPD became Chartered. I asked the recruitment agency if they could validate any of this and they came back to say they had contacted CIPD and that this employee's name was not on record.

These feel like red flags to me but I don't want to over react.

Should I be worried?

Thanks in advance. Fi

Parents
  • There are certainly some red flags, here. As one might say, to have one inaccuracy in one's CV is unfortunate but to have two is suspicious.

    The big question, though, is whether they can do the job. And this is in two respects: first, do they have the technical knowledge to perform the tasks you are asking of them; and, second, do you still have confidence in their propriety?

    I think the biggest red flag to me, as an HR practitioner, is that this person obtained their Level 5 equivalent qualification (if we take their story at face value) over thirty years ago and appears to have done nothing, since, to advance professionally. Do they even have a CIPD membership? Do they have *any* evidence of CPD?

    To my mind, this doesn't represent an attitude that would allow them to correctly advise or guide employees in the capacity of HR Officer.
  • in reply to Robey
    Thanks Robey.
    You echo my thoughts and I am beginning to wonder just what their level of professional competence is especially when it comes to advising and guiding employees.
    Definitely more conversations to be had and I'm really hoping we can reach a favourable outcome for all.
    Appreciate you taking the time to comment, thanks again, Fiona
  • in reply to Fiona
    Fiona said:
    I am beginning to wonder just what their level of professional competence is especially when it comes to advising and guiding employees.

    While the question of integrity is a personal judgement - do you really think that their level of professional competence can be measured by a qualification they took 32 years ago? Rather than by judging what they have been doing week in week out since then? Seems to not be a competence measure to me

  • in reply to Keith
    Hi Peter - I don't believe I'm making a personal judgement and forgive me if you were not suggesting that; the issue is around why they put this on their CV and assured the recruiters, not once but three times that they had this qualification when they knowingly knew that if asked for it they wouldn't be able to provide proof. I'm not interested in what qualifications they have from 30 years ago however I am interested in honesty which equates to integrity. Once the reference was cast into doubt I then asked about the certification.
    I did what any HR professional would do, when the CV and the references didn't match up, I wanted to understand why - more importantly my MD and Directors wanted to know why. I wanted to clarify the situation, which I honestly thought was a simple oversight by the referee and sign-off the mid-point probation review. I don't feel comfortable overlooking what appears to me to be embellishments to this person's alleged experience and qualifications.
    With regard to competence, there have been a number of occasions that I have questioned their approach on HR issues - basic best practice - e.g. during the recruitment and onboarding process not performing right to work in uk checks and their reply has been "I'm still finding my feet and there was a lot to do and our Admin support was off..." for me that does not demonstrate 30 plus years of HR operational experience.
    Best regards, Fiona
  • in reply to Fiona
    Hi Fiona

    To save Peters blushes I think you were replying to my comment not his.

    For clarity. I separated out the two elements - one was about integrity which is down to a personal judgement. There is no right or wrong on it and I cant say (and didn't try to) if your call on their integrity is correct. You have to call it as you see it.

    The other was on their competence. The issue with their certification is both a question of integrity (see above) and their competence. The point I was trying to make is on competence I think a certificate (if they have it or not) from 30 years ago is not a great measure of competence (although as I said all along might go to their integrity) Its interesting you now have other measures about their competence
Reply
  • in reply to Fiona
    Hi Fiona

    To save Peters blushes I think you were replying to my comment not his.

    For clarity. I separated out the two elements - one was about integrity which is down to a personal judgement. There is no right or wrong on it and I cant say (and didn't try to) if your call on their integrity is correct. You have to call it as you see it.

    The other was on their competence. The issue with their certification is both a question of integrity (see above) and their competence. The point I was trying to make is on competence I think a certificate (if they have it or not) from 30 years ago is not a great measure of competence (although as I said all along might go to their integrity) Its interesting you now have other measures about their competence
Children