accenture pre-employment background checks

frank730

Hi , does anyone know how accenture does their pre-employment background checks? do they offer you a written contract then do the checks or the other way around? when they will contact current employer is my main concern

many thanks

KSnee

It sounds like you're concerned that they will contact your employer and 'spill the beans' on your intent to leave. This is a very common scenario for people changing jobs and I suggest that you ask them (Accenture) not to jeopardise your current position by contacting your employer. This is an entirely reasonable request for any candidate to make and should be respected by any recruiter.

Stheno

KSnee wrote: »

It sounds like you're concerned that they will contact your employer and 'spill the beans' on your intent to leave. This is a very common scenario for people changing jobs and I suggest that you ask them (Accenture) not to jeopardise your current position by contacting your employer. This is an entirely reasonable request for any candidate to make and should be respected by any recruiter.

They may insist on contacting the current employer as part of the background check. The last time I had one, this was the case, and not only did they contact the referree I supplied, they seperately went and contacted the HR department independant of the referee

All of this with contract subject to completion of background check.

It's becoming more and more common in some industries.

KSnee

Stheno wrote: »

They may insist on contacting the current employer as part of the background check. The last time I had one, this was the case, and not only did they contact the referree I supplied, they seperately went and contacted the HR department independant of the referee

All of this with contract subject to completion of background check.

It's becoming more and more common in some industries.

It's entirely reasonable for the recruiting company to contact the current employer after the offer of employment has been made, the candidate has accepted the offer and the contract of employment has been issued. The only reason they would / could pull out of the deal at that point is if they find that the candidate has either been telling lies or not disclosed something very significant that would have deamed them unsuitable for the role.

However if no offer has yet been made and no contract has been tabled (as I suspect may be the case in this instance) then it's reasonable for the candidate to ask that the recruiter not make contact with the current employer and 'spill the beans' on their intent to leave.

seamus

Pre-employment process should always be offer, followed by acceptance, then sign the contract and agree a start date and then they contact your references.

Asking to contact your references before you've signed the contract is a red flag for me.

Mr. Incognito

Why would amyone sign a contract and conduct due diligence after???

As a lawyer thats utterly wrong

Tarzana

seamus wrote: »

Asking to contact your references before you've signed the contract is a red flag for me.

Why? What if the now signed up employee receives a bad or tellingly hesitant or sparse reference? What's the point of checking references if it's going to be done after the contract is signed?

seamus

Tarzana wrote: »

Why? What if the now signed up employee receives a bad or tellingly hesitant or sparse reference? What's the point of checking references if it's going to be done after the contract is signed?

"Subject to receipt of satisfactory references". It's the get out clause if you discover that the references are bogus or bad after the contract is signed. Usually they won't be. The employee has more to lose than the employer if they allow a reference check before the contract is signed.

Mr. Incognito

seamus wrote: »

"Subject to receipt of satisfactory references". It's the get out clause if you discover that the references are bogus or bad after the contract is signed. Usually they won't be. The employee has more to lose than the employer if they allow a reference check before the contract is signed.

That will work at the offer stage which is an invitation to treat.

It wont work at the post contrat stage. It can be argued that it is condition (remedy is termination) not a warranty (remedy is damages) but without looking up the case law I doubt it because references didnt induce you or influence you entering the contract.

It may be that the contract has a cooling off period but due diligence post contract is always wrong.


If this is your normal practice, change it.

Tarzana

seamus wrote: »

The employee has more to lose than the employer if they allow a reference check before the contract is signed.

No shít! Still don't understand why it would be considered a "red flag" towards the employer. The mooted employee having more to lose if references are checked before the contract is signed isn't really the employer's problem. I have never had a job where references weren't checked before the contract was signed.

seamus

Tarzana wrote: »

I have never had a job where references weren't checked before the contract was signed.

And I've never had a job where references were checked before the contract was signed

seamus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

That will work at the offer stage which is an invitation to treat.

It wont work at the post contrat stage. It can be argued that it is condition (remedy is termination) not a warranty (remedy is damages) but without looking up the case law I doubt it because references didnt induce you or influence you entering the contract.

It may be that the contract has a cooling off period but due diligence post contract is always wrong.


If this is your normal practice, change it.

Remember this is employment law. The employer can effectively terminate the contract within the first year for almost any reason without fear of reprimand.

Mr. Incognito

seamus wrote: »

Remember this is employment law. The employer can effectively terminate the contract within the first year for almost any reason without fear of reprimand.

Do you work in employment or the employment field? I really hope you don't.

It's true that some pieces of employment legislation require a year worked to bring a claim under that legislation, however the most significant pieces do not.

1. Breach of contract does not require a year worked. You sue on the contract.

2. Equality legislation has no employment period required. This covers access to employment and in the circumstances it is possible that one could claim discrimination based on a reference.

3. Unfair dismissals act requires a year unless its a specific breach. This is usually the source of confusion that people think they must have a year worked.

Trust me, if you have signed the contract you are opening a can of whoop-ass if you do not honour it.

The fact that people get away with it has led to a sense of that that's the law- but it assuredly is not.

Defiler Of The Coffin

The last two companies I've joined had tick boxes asking if it was OK to contact the current employer before starting the job. It's an entirely reasonable request to ask that they don't contact your current employer before you take up the new position. Very common and no doubt this has been requested of them before. They will probably cover themselves by inserting a clause in your contract stating they reserve the right to terminate your employment if you were found to have been dishonest or misleading in the information you submitted. So in any event they'll be covered.

Tarzana

seamus wrote: »

And I've never had a job where references were checked before the contract was signed

That still doesn't explain why you'd consider it a red flag for a company to check beforehand. It's so much more hassle and expense to let an employee go once a contract has been signed than to just screen them beforehand and pick another candidate if the first one gets bad/indifferent references. Why shouldn't they do that? And what does a candidate with good references have to fear? The only reference that shouldn't be contacted before contract is the candidate's current employer.

ec18

when I joined accenture, i signed my contract before they did the background checks

harney

My current employer (UK) had a tick box asking if it was OK to speak with my current employer, or to wait until after. I was told it would take several weeks after I had joined the company before all checks were completed, so basically not to worry about it. In the UK they tend to follow British Standard 7858:2006 which includes credit and criminal background checks (at least in my industry). I'm not sure how far the checks go in Ireland but as Accenture have a presence in the UK also, and you may have access to information hosted there, the check may go slightly beyond a simple reference check.

Gone West

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Do you work in employment or the employment field? I really hope you don't.

It's true that some pieces of employment legislation require a year worked to bring a claim under that legislation, however the most significant pieces do not.

1. Breach of contract does not require a year worked. You sue on the contract.

2. Equality legislation has no employment period required. This covers access to employment and in the circumstances it is possible that one could claim discrimination based on a reference.

3. Unfair dismissals act requires a year unless its a specific breach. This is usually the source of confusion that people think they must have a year worked.

Trust me, if you have signed the contract you are opening a can of whoop-ass if you do not honour it.

The fact that people get away with it has led to a sense of that that's the law- but it assuredly is not.

Sounds like you have read the law books but have little practical experience in industry in Ireland in this regard.

Mr. Incognito

Fuzzy wrote: »

Sounds like you have read the law books but have little practical experience in industry in Ireland in this regard.

I have been involved in cases litigated on behalf of employees that have been unfairly dismissed before the EAT and in the High Court and have resulted in substantial payouts and more usually settlements.

Cases that resulted in pay outs to the employees because a lot of people that work in HR are badly trained, misinformed, and wilfully ignorant.

If that's the practice. It's a terribly stupid and risky practice.

gozunda

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I have been involved in cases litigated on behalf of employees that have been unfairly dismissed before the EAT and in the High Court and have resulted in substantial payouts and more usually settlements.

Cases that resulted in pay outs to the employees because a lot of people that work in HR are badly trained, misinformed, and wilfully ignorant.

If that's the practice. It's a terribly stupid and risky practice.

Excellent post. Some employers believe / have been led to believe (wrongly) that they do not have to adhere to employment law - that somehow they can blag / out manoeuvre / ignore relevant legislation. It is of note that certain Employer organisations unfortunately have also been promoting same. However there is evidence that some insurance companies are getting tired of footing the bill for such practices.