As the HR rep for the company, you have an obligation to let the department manager know that the candidate is not eligible for hire due to his inability to satisfactorily pass a criminal background check. The potential exposure to the company is far greater if you hire this individual (and he isn't "rehabilitated")than if you simply tell the supervisor he isn't eligible. Isn't this the reason we conduct cbc's?
Your role is part employee advocate and part Management/company representative. You need to act to protect both.
I asked in my last post about the traffic incident and how it might relate to your hire of a driver. The ee pleads guilty on his lawyers advice, to a misdemeanor seed charge? Is this some way of saying he was charged with possession of drug related items? In his car? Now think about hiring him as a driver - some kind of accident happens - he is tested and has drugs in his bloodstream. Hmmmm - now where is the company's exposure? Attorney's advice or not about a guilty plea, these circumstances would not play well to a jury trying to determine how liable your company was for an accident. Stay away from this one.
First Scenario, this one is really a judgement call. If you this employe is a good ee other wise, you may want to keep him. When I used to work in a manufacturing setting we had no problem hiring this kind of person. However, if missing work because of this becomes an issue then I would let him go.
Second Scenario, do not hire this man. This is the reason we do background checks. This is not discrimination because he will have contact with children and any criminal background related to the abuse of child is grounds for not hiring.
As for Scenario #1... I have a written policy that we can terminate for absence due to incarceration. I know it smacks of "guilty until proven innocent", but I've never lost an unemployment claim to it.
Comments
Your role is part employee advocate and part Management/company representative. You need to act to protect both.
Second Scenario, do not hire this man. This is the reason we do background checks. This is not discrimination because he will have contact with children and any criminal background related to the abuse of child is grounds for not hiring.
As for Scenario #2...
I can't even believe we're debating Scenario #2.