Company Obligation re: Criminal Act

HRDB

We recently had an employee whom a client pressed charges against for a criminal act. Before HR interviewed the employee, the authorities (who told the employee that this was also based on info gathered from his employer) arrested the employee who confessed to the wrongdoing.

What is HR's/the company's responsibility to the employee in a situation such as this? Should we have spoken to the employee prior to the authorities showing up at their home?

TN HR

From your post, it seems to me that you have no more or no less resposnibility to the employee than if he had robbed a bank and the FBI kicked down his door and hauled him away.

Your post is somewhat vague, but I think you may really be wondering about exposure since it involved a customer AND the fact that the police apparently corroborated some of this through you?

Gene

HRDB

yes, although the facts weren't obtained through HR but through Security.

Pork

HRDB: I would review my procedures and policy pertaining to attendance, criminal activities, incarcerated, suspension verses termination pending further review and outcome of the charges. This date, we terminated an employee for the theft of another person's property (an employee, mechanic who had brought a fine air compressor on site for safer and speed of action). The item was left on our property over night and an employee with access to the secure location stole the air compressor. He was caught trying to sell the unit on the pawn market. He was arrested and admitted to the wrong doing. No further proof was required. We were prepared to suspend pending out come, but since he admitted to the police there is formal record and therefore, go right to termination without hesitation.

If there was no connection to your company, I would suspend pending futher development. After I am satisfied there is no wrong doing toward or inconjunction with our business and our coustomer, I would put him back to work and wait for legal proceedings to go forth. That is, if the crime or his personal actions do not cause you to be alarmed or a risk for your company. If the ee was a money handler or accountant with access and the crime was related to money handling, I would continue the suspension pending completion of your investigation into impact on your employer or customer. GET THE FACTS AND THEN ACT BOLDLY!

HRDB

What did you use as your reason for termination??

marc

I don't know why you would have spoken to a person about to be arrested. Who knows if they would have fled, or gone over the edge and attacked the person doing the informing or what. Seems smart to avoid this confrontation.

Someone said to review your procedures and I think it is a good idea because if Security had enough information to inform the gendarmes about criminal activity, then you interviewed the guy and still hired him, you should be asking how this happened. You would think someone in security would have raised the red flag before making this person an EE.