By: Senyo M. Adjabeng

In an Employment Relationship, Trust is everything – It is all we have. ~Self~

It is only a ‘shallow’ and optimistic HR practitioner who will assume all employees s/he hires have the best of character and are without blemish.  Let’s assume briefly for the sake of argument that this optimistic view is true, it is still important to ensure that what a new employee says s/he is and has put on his or her CV is surely so.

The optimist view of life is that of positivity at all times, so that an optimist may view every new employee who has successfully gone through the interview and screening processes, for example, as the best of everything – character, competence, effective and excellent.  But we all know that the reality is not so.  Recruitment processes have to be more diversified and innovative in order to see beyond the facet of personalities who line up to via for vacancies.  Simply put, most job seekers are putting up appearances and presenting misleading information just to get jobs.  A contemporary recruitment process must be able to seek out these misfits before they plague the organization.

The fifth round of the Ghana Living Standard Survey in 2008 indicated that about 51.9% of people who reported that they work, are actually under employed.  The Ghana Statistical Service defines underemployment to include all persons who during the reference period of the survey worked for 40 hours or less and wanted to work more hours.  All of a sudden people do not want to be called unemployed.  This basic information about our labour market means that there are more people out there looking for decent jobs today including those already in employment.

And where people are desperate for something, they do anything and everything to get that job including lying, cheating and indulging in all manner of dishonest activities.  This phenomenon makes it most difficult to identify and select the very best for a particular position.  So well, passing the interview and screening processes are just not enough and employers may have to dig deeper to confirm and verify information provided by new employees.

Now as part of the recruitment process, employers are expected to conduct medical checks on employees as a requirement at Law.  The nature of the medical tests is not described in the Law.  All the Law requires is that the employee must necessarily undergo pre-employment examination to ensure that the employee is in good health and is medically fit for work.  The question therefore is how far can an employer legally go with these medical checks?  What specific tests are enough to satisfy the requirement of good health and fitness for work?  How deep can an employee’s background be checked and investigated?  These are issues employers must begin to aver their minds to.  These are the tough questions I want to ask in this article this week.

Contemporary Recruitment Practices

Recruitment is one of the lifelines of any business today.  The concept is simple.  There is a business to run and profit to be made.  An investor cannot do it alone and hence comes in with a management team (people).  The management team can also not do it alone so they bring in technical, operations, sales and marketing, Human Resources and other staff (more people) to assist.  Depending on the quality of people they bring on board, management can make more money for the investor or lose all or part of the business investment.

Recruitment is the process of identifying potentially suitable candidates for specific job positions in a business or organization and encouraging such candidates to apply for the available positions.  The recruitment processes, unlike many continue to believe, ends at identifying such candidates for the vacant job positions.  Other processes such as Selection and Employee Orientation complete a process called the employee engagement process.  Of course other schools of thought would say recruitment ends when the candidate is at post but are most likely to combine their definition with selection.

Recruitment planning must take a new dimension today.  The average processes of identify and inviting potential employees are no longer enough.  A more thorough recruitment plan must provide for detailed checks medically and per employee’s background.  The normal writing and verification from referees may not be enough at all.  In fact, asking a referee whether he knows someone, which s/he does anyway and confirming same does not pass as a background check.

Every Single New Employee must be thoroughly checked and double checked.  In employment relationships, trust is everything!!

Another recruitment tool which is underutilized by recruiters today is the employee orientation programme.  It is becoming pretty obvious that the one day departmental tours and information sessions provided to new employees as orientation is no longer effective or enough.  The orientation programme should seek to provide the new employee enough information about the job, its conditions and terms as well as challenge the new employee in ways that psychologically motivate or terminate them depending on how they respond.  An orientation programme therefore can be designed and used to sift new employees.

The final contemporary recruitment practice in my opinion is the probation period.  Probation is basically a trial period during which the parties to an intended employment relationship assess each other’s competencies to make a final decision on the employment contract process.  Hoping that my definition does not sound too technical, a probation period is a trial period for the employer to be sure that they made the right hiring decision and for the employee to be sure that s/he chose the right organization to work for.  Unfortunately, the probation period here again is rushed with the employee hoping that it is over soon without typically assessing the conditions of work and terms of the contract well enough, while the employer fails to fully assess the competencies and background of the new employee before confirming and finalizing the contract of employment.

In my opinion, the probationary period is the final opportunity of an employer to get the hiring decision right.  Here, and before confirmation, the employee must have undertaken and passed the medical examination, as well as pass a background check and successfully present guarantors (referees) for assessment and acceptance by the company before employee is confirmed.  So who are the best employees?  Of course, no employee is perfect and without flaws.  But when we say good employee, we mean those employees that are high performers because of a unique passion for the job,  a determination to succeed at all times, belief in the objectives and values of the organization and above all loyal and confidants of the organization.  And then critically, such employees should have passed the fitness examinations and background checks.

In contemporary recruitment therefore, you will realise that there is a lot for the recruitment professional to do before handing the employee over conclusively to the employer upon confirmation of the new employee.

Background Checks and Employee Referencing

Let’s first talk about employee referencing.  Currently, it is the custom of many organizations to request for referees from new job applicants and then write to these referees requesting generally for confirmation as to knowledge of or familiarity with the applicant.  Most often, these referees are in readiness because the applicant might have informed them that they are being presented as referees.  This process is often the primary or major process company’s use for checking the background of the employees.   Looking at such a flawed process critically, how is a referee bound when all s/he does is to say I know such and such a person who is seeking employment in your organization? None whatsoever!

An employee reference or referee must be made to guarantee for example or vouch for the credibility of the employee by signing a guarantor’s form so that such referee is bound by the good conduct of the employee and liable to the bad conduct of the employee in the event of default.  A referee must be made to share in the responsibility for ensuring the performance of an employee by appropriate conduct.

Employee references are expected to do more for the recruitment process than just the confirmation that the job applicant is known.

Checking Background of Job Applicants

This may seem simple because the current practice is not comprehensive enough.  What companies do now is to write to referees presented by the applicants and request a response to whether they know the job applicant.  The response is then filed as a confirmation of the reference checking process.  From the elucidation on the issues as above, you would realise that it is woefully inadequate.  Checking the background of employees should be thorough, spanning across the applicant’s true age and nationality, birthplace and others.  Reference checking should also confirm past work experience in organizations as specified or even unspecified in the employee’s CV.

So how deep can an employer dig in checking the background of an employee?  I believe the search and confirmation should be limited to information on the applicant’s CV.  Since the CV is information that has been voluntarily submitted or put out by the applicant, information uncovered confirming a falsehood as provided on the CV becomes legitimate grounds to terminate the employment relationship.  Other information outside those provided by the CV may come across during the background checking and investigation process but should not be used as a discriminatory tool to reject the candidate.  Such information should only be used if it is justifiable and fair to the employee or candidate.

Medical Checks

As mentioned earlier, the Labour Regulations, 2007 (LI 1833) requires that employers shall not permanently engage an employee unless the employee has been examined by a recognized medical officer who confirms that s/he is in good health and fit for work.  Beyond that, it is not indicative what type and to what extent such checks should go.  Now apart from the normal physical examinations that are conducted, some organizations are testing for HIV/AIDS and pregnancy tests, results which are used indiscriminately against the candidate.  Using pregnancy as selection criteria is discriminatory and such employees can pursue the necessary remedies at Law.

Under general HIV/AIDS policies and Law, testing must be voluntary.  That is why an employee must know all the tests to be undertaken so they may make the necessary consensual decision to take the test or not.  HIV/AIDS testing may be criteria for good health.  But note also that HIV/AIDS policies provide confidential support and care to employees who are tested as positive.  Test information should assist management to provide better healthcare for the health of the worker and not to discriminate against an employee.  Testing positive to HIV/AIDS does not mean necessarily that an employee is not fit for work.  Remember, people who test positive are still strong and can live for many more years when medically supported.  It is therefore not an excuse to refuse an employee employment on grounds of HIV/AIDS infection in many cases.  Medical testing is primarily important because it provides the baseline information about an employee’s health so that years down the line, if occupational work causes any health conditions, the employee can make justifiable medical claims.  It is for the protection of employees that such medical tests are necessary.

Having said all that, the situation on the ground is different.  Human Resources practitioners and employers are still stigmatized against pregnant employees and HIV/AIDS infected people.  Until employees seek the necessary redress, this will continue as no one is taking up the anti discrimination fight seriously enough.