conditional offer

Aimee · July 2004

Question: Can I stipulate in the Conditional Offer of Employment that employment is contingent upon criminal background results, as well as drug test results?

I am hiring a staff for a new hospital and cannot wait for results of criminal background checks (4-6 weeks) before hiring them since we will be going through survey and I need to show that I have a staff. However, I don't want to be obligated to keep them if a background comes back negative. On the other hand, I don't want someone to cry discrimination if a check comes back negative. Suggestions?

Don D · July 2004

I think you meant to say 'positive'. Yes, you can do what you suggest. Every offer letter I write details the things upon which the offer in contingent. It may be relocation to the area, drug screen/physical, background check, the signing of a contract, or anything else you might release the person for if it fell through. Go for it! x:-)

Aimee · July 2004

oops, yes i meant positive ... thank you!

ScorpioHR · July 2004

Aimee, following is the "blurb" we add to any "Offer of Employment" - It is the last paragraph before the ee signature-I too work in a medical environment and this was approved by our attorney-

"Employment is contingent upon the employee passing a certified drug test, background check and issuance of State (your state) licensure encompassing medical technologists and their specialty fields".

Aimee · July 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-27-04 AT 11:24AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Does that mean that I can complete the hire process and actually put them to work on the floor pending results?

ScorpioHR · July 2004

I would like to say that we have NEVER started an ee until all paperwork was back and in order-However,that would be a whopper of a lie!

We have them sign the letter before they begin work, I drug test them either the same day or VERY shortly thereafter- So, guess what? I can't help on that question from experience. However, all ee's are in a 90 day introductory period, if I got a positive result back or a criminal check that tweeked me, they would be gone.

Crout · July 2004

If you are obligated by State regulation to conduct background checks, you might include a blurb on that as a preface to your statement. Just a thought.

KathiHR · July 2004

We are in social services & also have to start people before all the checks are back. We include a sentence that says, "In the event that the results of various background checks disqualify the employee for employment, the offer of employment is withdrawn & employment will cease immediately." We have them sign the offer letter & I always specifically emphasize that if anything comes back, we will let them go.

Aimee · July 2004

i'm new here and am so grateful for all of your input and the friendly environment ... thanks!

Yankee · July 2004

Our offers for certain jobs are contigent upon successful drug screening, background checks as well as credit checks. All new employees are on probation from 6-12 months. It is appropriate to terminate an employee based on additional information recieved after they have been hired, even beyond the probationary period.

pork1 · July 2004

AIMEE: Welcome to the forum; you can put almost anything in a conditional employment letter of offer. As long as it does not cause you to be discriminating in your choice of contentional conditions. Once signed and agreed to both the employer and the employee is subject to the words written. As Don says, go for it!

If we can be of any further assisteance please do not hesitate to ask. Some of us spend a lot of time here during our working day, as well as, at night when we have nothing better to do.

PORK

Yankee · July 2004

AMEN!

mstechphr · July 2004

Aimee, it is my understanding of the FCRA that the employer must safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of the person being investigated. Therefore, we were strongly cautioned by legal counsel when implementing this policy to make sure that we have completed all paperwork before hiring new employees. This way, if a background check comes back with something that is questionable or unacceptable, which leads you to decide to not hire that person, their identity has not been compromised in the application process. We do not hire anyone until all paperwork has been completed. It's ruffled a few feathers but you reduce the liability exposure of your organization by doing so. I don't know who is doing your background checks, but we normally get them back in 4-6 working days. Why does it take 4-6 months to get them back? Are you using an outside vendor?

Don D · July 2004

I'm not understanding your post. What is it about hiring an employee conditionally that might compromise their identity? Whether you hire someone prior to or after a background investigation, the process is the same, the resulting information is the same and the identity process is the same. It can take 14-20 days to get a solid criminal history check back that involves the candidate's residence in 12 counties in 6 states. There is no common database that holds this information. It's quite a laborious and intricate process to check multiple locations, no matter who does it.

mstechphr · July 2004

Don D - I guess I didn't do a very good job wording my response. What I meant was compromising the applicant's identity with respect to information contained in the background check. I was trying to point out that when you do the background screening could matter alot to the person being screened...especially if the results are negative. Maybe I can clarify what I was trying to say by using an example: If you give applicant A a "conditional offer" and put them through the background screening, and it comes back with information that leads you to rescind the job offer,then it's a relatively private matter: no one knows about it except the applicant, you (HR), and possibly the manager of the hiring dept. But if you give them a "conditional offer", bring them into active employment, and 3 weeks later the background screening comes back with a problem, then other employees within the company will know why this person was released. Thus, the privacy and confidentiality of their background screening has been breeched. Other employees will know there is "something" in the background report that caused applicant A to be released from the job.

You're right, the length of time that it takes varies widely because some counties may only have one person who pulls this information. However, there are vendors out there who do nothing but background screenings and they are very efficient at it. Yes, we've had one or two that have taken a few weeks to process but by and large, the average turnaround time with our vendor is 4-6 days. I just had one that took 8 business days. You never know until you get started.

Phew - it's frightening to give a response on this forum. I think I'll just go back to reading and not saying anything.

Don D · July 2004

I see your point now. Our corporation nationwide uses a screening service somewhere up in yankee land. It takes an average of 10 days for them to crank out the full report which includes quite a few search areas. Your point about protecting the employee is curious. I don't have the faintest bit of concern for protecting the person from whatever he might have done in his past life that would get him fired. But, by the same token, I do not ever announce to other employees why someone was released from employment. We did make the mistake of putting an electrician to work a few months ago, prior to his drug screen results coming back. It took about 6 days for the split sample testing and MRO procedure and finally I had to send him on his way. I'm sure people figured it out when he disappeared. But they didn't hear it from me. But, still, I had no concern about protecting his virtue. He was the one smoking dope.

dchr9203 · July 2004

Yes you certainly can. However, in my experience, its been better to have all the paperwork first, before they report to work. In my previous life in healthcare, it was a problem because we needed to hire nurses pretty quickly, and several of them had to be let go, which put a huge burden on HR in regard to revolving door turnover.

Aimee · July 2004

I appreciate all of the input ... I agree with Don that even if I have to dismiss an employee, no one REALLY knows why, at least not from HR, and the rest of the population can only GUESS and come to their own conclusions. As long as it cannot be traced back to HR, I don't think I would be too concerned about the company's liability in confidentiality matters.

I just love this place.

National Guard · July 2004

In the training videos that M.Lee Smith offers the attorney, John B. Phillips points out that you should indeed make a CONDITIONAL offer first. It protects the company from discrimination suits because the qualified doctor or background check disqualifies the applicant and not the company. BTW he points all this out and does not mention anything about confidentiality of the applicant.

Again, their main reasoning for doing conditional offers is for liability purposes.

conditional offer

Comments