Violence in Workplace - employment verification?
Kymm
140 Posts
We recently terminated an employee who had physically assaulted his "girlfriend" in the employee parking lot at the start of his shift (she also ran into the plant yelling for protection - which we gave her.) My question is... IF we get an employee verification from some other company in the future, should I be telling them that there was an incident of "violence" ? Our policy is to only give out title and dates of employment, but I'm thinking I have read about a law that states we are required to tell possible "future" employers?
And is it a LAW or is it just "recommended"? And I'm a little "iffy" as well, because it was really more of a "domestic dispute" that occured in our parking lot... would that/should that make any difference?
And is it a LAW or is it just "recommended"? And I'm a little "iffy" as well, because it was really more of a "domestic dispute" that occured in our parking lot... would that/should that make any difference?
Comments
I, too, have recently begun to read that the protection from revealing information which after the fact is slanderous to the x-employee's character, by only revealing the employment dates of hire to termination is being eroded by the "violence in the work place situations". If you knew that this employee had a violent characteristic, a fact, as revealed by his attack in the work place parking lot, regardless of domestic nature of the anger, is a fact that the x-employer should have revealed! Your words in the post which indicate the nature of this attack was domestic, is words that should not be past on, that is probably your opinion and not supported by fact.
In the most recent seminar I attended this subject came up and the instructor expressed this same concern of one legal situation trumping another legal situation. He indicated that providing factual situational information, when provided with a written signed consent form by the x-employee should be sufficient to protect the x-employer from the slander charge. Make sure you do not add personal opinion about the individual. Like "Joe Friday", the facts mam only the facts.
Hope this helps!
PORK
PORK
This forum is worthy of great postings and less contoversal BS, Thanks ML Smith!
PORK
MY THOUGHTS ONLY: Without a signed release, it becomes a decision of the HR to make the right call. Is the situation so strong and leans toward a violent characteristic? I believe, I would inform the other HR that the individual is not subject to "rehire" and that the HR should explore further with the candidate the facts about his/her termination with our company. I, as a professional HR, know the meaning of those words and it is not slanderous, but it does allow for the "yellow flag" to become raised and flapping in the breeze. Privacy gets trumped when violence in the workplace becomes the central issue. A reasonable person could not expect the "a violance in the workplace" characteristic would not be "closely held" or kept "confidental" from another employer. The employee did the crime and must suffer the time!
PORK
Arizona law regarding job reference liability if found at Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1361. The law provides protection for employers who provide job references for current and former employees. Under the law, a former employer may provide a requesting employer or agent acting on the employer’s behalf information concerning a person’s education, training, experience, qualifications, and job performance to be used for the purpose of evaluating the person for employment. An employer is immune from civil liability for the disclosure or the consequences of providing information if the employer, in good faith, provides information requested by a prospective employer about the reason for termination of an employee or about the job performance, professional conduct, or evaluation of a current or former employee. There is a presumption of good faith if either of the following is true:
¨ The employer employs fewer than 100 employees and provides only information concerning the employee’s education, training experience, qualifications, and job performance.
¨ The employer employs at least 100 employees and has a regular practice in this state of providing information requested by a prospective employer about the reason for termination of a former employee or about the job performance, professional conduct, or evaluation of an employee.
The presumption of good faith is rebuttable by showing that the employer disclosed the information with actual malice or with intent to mislead. Actual malice means knowledge that the information was false or was provided with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
Communications concerning employees or prospective employees that are made by an employer, prospective employer, or by a labor organization to a government body or agency that are required by law or furnished according to written rules or policies of the government body or agency are privileged. The employer, prospective employer, or labor organization cannot be held liable for such communications.
Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Follow Pork's advice and consult an attorney. Then make a decision.
I just noticed I've moved to North Carolina - when did I do that?
I don't know why.