Resources: Blog

Vehicle services attendant dismissed for lying on his CV

Blog
|

The truth Hertz

Employers are often required to exercise a significant degree of trust and reliance in job candidates, believing that they will be truthful in recruitment processes.

Employers are often required to exercise a significant degree of trust and reliance in job candidates, believing that they will be truthful in recruitment processes. Whilst it is good practice for employers to double-check a job candidate’s qualifications and experience prior to making an offer of employment, the reality is that information provided in a curriculum vitae or an interview will be relied upon by an employer when considering who to recruit.

For employers, the consequences of incorrect information being provided by an employee can not only raise questions about the employee’s capability to perform the role but also their honesty and integrity in the employment relationship.

This was recently acknowledged by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in Tham v Hertz Australia Pty Limited T/A Hertz [2018] FWC 3967. The matter concerned a Vehicle Services Attendant who was dismissed from his employment following the discovery that he had lied about his length of service at a previous employer on his curriculum vitae.

The discovery arose after the employee had made a worker’s compensation claim that seemed dubious to the employer’s HR manager, particularly in the context of concerns that the employee was making a number of other complaints and applications to various commissions and tribunals about the workplace practices and conduct of the employer.

The HR manager contacted the employee’s prior employers, tried to verify his degree and conducted a Google search which uncovered that the employee had made an unfair dismissal claim against a previous employer in relation to a date of dismissal that was not consistent with what had been provided in his curriculum vitae. Whilst the employee had stated he was previously employed for five years – the unfair dismissal decision noted an employment period of ten months.

Having formed the view that it was unlikely that the incorrect date was a typographical error, the employer put an allegation to the employee that he had deliberately provided false and misleading information to the employer.

When the employee failed to attend the disciplinary meeting, the employer made the decision to terminate the employment relationship. The employee subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the FWC.

The employee gave evidence that the incorrect date was an error and that he had notified the employer of that mistake both prior to the commencement of and during his employment. In considering the matter, the FWC took issue with the employee’s credibility generally, noting in particular that it was not plausible that the employee had disclosed the very error that the employer had relied on, despite there being numerous other errors in his curriculum vitae.

The FWC was convinced that the employee had intentionally misled his employer into believing he had a history of stable and long-term employment and attempted to divert his employer’s attention away from the fact that he had been terminated and that he had taken action against numerous employers (regardless of whether such action was legitimate or not).

Despite their being some procedural deficiencies in the employer’s disciplinary process, the FWC was satisfied that the significance of the employee’s dishonesty justified the employer’s loss of trust and confidence in the employee’s ability to perform his role with honesty and integrity. Accordingly, the FWC dismissed the application.

Lessons for employers

When discoveries of lies or deceit in the recruitment process are made after employment has commenced, employers should carefully consider the inconsistencies having regard to all the circumstances prior to taking any further action. For example:

  • What is the nature of the inconsistency?
  • Was it likely an inadvertent error or intentional?
  • Does it go to the inherent requirements of the position?
  • Does it go to issues of honesty and integrity?

Dishonesty, even in the pre-employment process may damage trust and confidence which are necessary for the ongoing employment relationship.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Employer dismisses long standing employee for breaching drug policy

Organic panic

Although circumstances may be unique to each case, generally, workplace policies will provide employers with grounds for termination when a significant breach has occurred.

Read more...

PCBU ordered to publicise work health and safety conviction

Bad publicity

When setting a penalty for breaches of work health and safety obligations, the Courts will look at the need for specific deterrence against the offender and also the need for general deterrence for employers and the particular industry.

Read more...

An employer’s reminder to employee fails to count as a performance warning

The tough conversation

There are often misconceptions about how many times an employee must be warned regarding their poor performance before they are able to be dismissed. Although there is no legislative requirement stipulating the number of warnings required, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that an employee must be warned about their unsatisfactory performance before they are dismissed for that reason.

Read more...

Employer dismisses long standing employee for breaching drug policy

Organic panic

Although circumstances may be unique to each case, generally, workplace policies will provide employers with grounds for termination when a significant breach has occurred.

Read more...

Managing returns to the workplace in the post-COVID-19 environment

The HomeWork Debate

In the post COVID-19 environment, one of the most common issues faced by employers is facilitating the return of employees to the office or normal workplace. In particular, many employers have been required to deal with increased reluctance by employees to return to the workplace following lengthy periods of working from home.

Read more...

Court confirms small claim proceedings extends to matters involving accessorial liability

The deregistered accessory

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is able to determine certain underpayment disputes as “small claims proceedings”.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.