Hi,
A resource in one of the top IT companies was married when he joined the company but did not disclose it - he stated he was single. Subsequently, he got divorced after 2 years. He got married again but did not disclose or update his company records. He got divorced again within 2 years. Now, the important thing is when someone tries to do his background check, he appears single. The second time he got married was also under the guise of being single. Does this become an integrity issue with a company if such personal information is not provided? Will be thankful if you could share your thoughts on this.
Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
5A resource in one of the top IT companies was married when he joined the company but did not disclose it - he stated he was single. Subsequently, he got divorced after 2 years. He got married again but did not disclose or update his company records. He got divorced again within 2 years. Now, the important thing is when someone tries to do his background check, he appears single. The second time he got married was also under the guise of being single. Does this become an integrity issue with a company if such personal information is not provided? Will be thankful if you could share your thoughts on this.
Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings,
Hiding information is unethical. However, marital information is personal. There can be too many reasons why he was forced to do so. A legal way of confirming might be if he ever declared anyone as his nominee in PF or Mediclaim. Please confirm the reason first before axing the employee.
I have hired many who were undergoing divorce, and it took them up to 2 years to clear every document. Paperwork takes time; hence, as an HR professional, I allowed them to declare themselves single and nominate their parents or children if any.
Hope that helps!
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hiding information is unethical. However, marital information is personal. There can be too many reasons why he was forced to do so. A legal way of confirming might be if he ever declared anyone as his nominee in PF or Mediclaim. Please confirm the reason first before axing the employee.
I have hired many who were undergoing divorce, and it took them up to 2 years to clear every document. Paperwork takes time; hence, as an HR professional, I allowed them to declare themselves single and nominate their parents or children if any.
Hope that helps!
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The act shows serious lack of integrity. One must consider whether to retain such employees.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
Why do we hire employees? We hire employees so that they meet the job requirements, satisfy the customers, deliver the desired level of performance, etc. When taking a person on board, disclosure of certain personal information is necessary. However, non-disclosure of information related to wedding or divorce cannot be construed as "misconduct". Furthermore, impinging non-disclosure of this information on one's integrity is a logical overreach.
Disclosure of information about near and dear ones matters in case of an accident or any other emergency. If that person has provided details of another family member, that should suffice for your purpose. Secondly, while filling PF or any other form, it is not mandatory to designate one's spouse as a nominee. However, when submitting PF forms to the PF office, it is important to maintain proper records of what is submitted.
Therefore, my request is not to delve into an employee's personal life or pry for the number of weddings or divorces in one's life. Yours is a professional relationship with the employee and not a personal one.
Precaution: As a precaution, you may issue a circular to all employees to provide real-time information about their personal lives. This information is crucial because in the event of an employee's death, conflicts may arise due to claims by the spouse and other family members. Settlement of claims becomes difficult and delayed when there are two or more claimants, and such cases occasionally end up in court.
For Mr Nathrao: Rules for government employees and rules for private employees differ. In government service, when a government employee gets married, the spouse automatically becomes eligible for terminal benefits. However, in the private sector, whom to nominate for PF or any other benefits is the employee's personal decision. Real-time information regarding weddings or divorces is mandatory for government employees but not for private employees according to labor laws. Moreover, considering non-disclosure of marriage information as a "serious lack of integrity" stretches beyond reason.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Why do we hire employees? We hire employees so that they meet the job requirements, satisfy the customers, deliver the desired level of performance, etc. When taking a person on board, disclosure of certain personal information is necessary. However, non-disclosure of information related to wedding or divorce cannot be construed as "misconduct". Furthermore, impinging non-disclosure of this information on one's integrity is a logical overreach.
Disclosure of information about near and dear ones matters in case of an accident or any other emergency. If that person has provided details of another family member, that should suffice for your purpose. Secondly, while filling PF or any other form, it is not mandatory to designate one's spouse as a nominee. However, when submitting PF forms to the PF office, it is important to maintain proper records of what is submitted.
Therefore, my request is not to delve into an employee's personal life or pry for the number of weddings or divorces in one's life. Yours is a professional relationship with the employee and not a personal one.
Precaution: As a precaution, you may issue a circular to all employees to provide real-time information about their personal lives. This information is crucial because in the event of an employee's death, conflicts may arise due to claims by the spouse and other family members. Settlement of claims becomes difficult and delayed when there are two or more claimants, and such cases occasionally end up in court.
For Mr Nathrao: Rules for government employees and rules for private employees differ. In government service, when a government employee gets married, the spouse automatically becomes eligible for terminal benefits. However, in the private sector, whom to nominate for PF or any other benefits is the employee's personal decision. Real-time information regarding weddings or divorces is mandatory for government employees but not for private employees according to labor laws. Moreover, considering non-disclosure of marriage information as a "serious lack of integrity" stretches beyond reason.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"When a government employee gets married, the spouse becomes eligible for the terminal benefits automatically.
I know of cases where people have not changed their nomination after marriage and died, resulting in the money/benefits going to the mother or father of the employee. It is an individual's wish not to nominate their wife for PF, but hiding the fact of marriage in the biodata form of the company is a different kettle of fish.
[Link to source](https://www.citehr.com/379067-pf-death-claim-who-didnot-change-nomination.html)"
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I know of cases where people have not changed their nomination after marriage and died, resulting in the money/benefits going to the mother or father of the employee. It is an individual's wish not to nominate their wife for PF, but hiding the fact of marriage in the biodata form of the company is a different kettle of fish.
[Link to source](https://www.citehr.com/379067-pf-death-claim-who-didnot-change-nomination.html)"
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Smita,
As our experts have shared their views, let me ask a question: What do you do, and why have you raised this question? As a retired academic, it appears to me that this is a question posed in a management course, and you are seeking help to answer it.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As our experts have shared their views, let me ask a question: What do you do, and why have you raised this question? As a retired academic, it appears to me that this is a question posed in a management course, and you are seeking help to answer it.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your thoughts.
(Cite Contribution) 1969 - I totally agree with you that a person may have reasons not to disclose.
Dinesh Divekar - You are right that employees are hired for their work and personal life should not be looked into.
Nathrao - Yes, it is the individual's choice whom they want to nominate for different benefits and claims.
In the case I have brought forward, two things are clear:
1. The employee deliberately does not update the marital status.
2. When asked directly in the system whether single/married/divorced, has chosen to give his answer as 'single'.
Agreed that his work matters, but he should correctly keep the chain of his personal life as per the sequence of events happening. It just keeps the history clear.
Personally, I feel it is a breach in integrity as the answer given is wrong; however, it does not warrant throwing out the employee.
Yet, it does show that he is capable of misleading and hiding facts. Therefore, his work ethics do come under the scanner.
Thank you.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
(Cite Contribution) 1969 - I totally agree with you that a person may have reasons not to disclose.
Dinesh Divekar - You are right that employees are hired for their work and personal life should not be looked into.
Nathrao - Yes, it is the individual's choice whom they want to nominate for different benefits and claims.
In the case I have brought forward, two things are clear:
1. The employee deliberately does not update the marital status.
2. When asked directly in the system whether single/married/divorced, has chosen to give his answer as 'single'.
Agreed that his work matters, but he should correctly keep the chain of his personal life as per the sequence of events happening. It just keeps the history clear.
Personally, I feel it is a breach in integrity as the answer given is wrong; however, it does not warrant throwing out the employee.
Yet, it does show that he is capable of misleading and hiding facts. Therefore, his work ethics do come under the scanner.
Thank you.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Smita,
As Mr. Simhan posted this question, is it a case study that you want the members to solve? Also, in some Western countries, asking about your marital status is considered rude.
Regards, Vineeta
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As Mr. Simhan posted this question, is it a case study that you want the members to solve? Also, in some Western countries, asking about your marital status is considered rude.
Regards, Vineeta
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
In your second post, you have written that "When asked directly in the system whether single/married/divorced...has chosen to give his answer as 'single'". On this, I would like to ask one simple question: Why would you like to know the marital status of the employee? If you wish to know at all, why have you not given the right to the employee to withhold the information? By making disclosures mandatory, are you not breaching the privacy of the employee?
This information pertains to the employee's personal life; therefore, it is secondary information. How can you link the disclosure of secondary information to the "integrity" of the employee?
The Supreme Court has told the Central Government not to make Aadhar card mandatory because it breaches the privacy of the individual. This is because ours is a democratic country, and democracy demands respecting the privacy of each citizen. Additionally, it was reported in the newspapers that our current Prime Minister, while filling out a form to contest the assembly election in the past, had left blank information about his marital status. However, while filling out the form for the Lok Sabha election, he disclosed that he is married. Nevertheless, for keeping the column blank about marital status, the Election Commission did not turn down the form of Mr. Narendra Modi. Therefore, what flexibility is the Election Commission ready to show, and why is the same flexibility your private limited company not ready to show?
If your logic is to be applied, then should we suspect our Prime Minister's integrity?
Today's HR has far more significant issues to look at. I humbly request you to solve the primary business issues rather than delving or prying into employees' personal affairs. My experience while dealing with HR shows that there are hundreds of things that HR is supposed to do or can do that they do not.
In the olden days, in all practical purposes, business owners behaved as if they were feudal lords. The rigid social order of yesteryears has been crumbling. The workplace of the 21st century is different. Today, the major focus is on competition and innovation. It appears that you are yet to come to terms with the norms of the modern workplace. Today, even the LGBT community has gained social sanction. Just ten years ago, anybody would have frowned at such a community.
For Mr. Nathrao: You have written that "[i]I know of cases where people have not changed the nomination after marriage and died with money/benefits then going to the mother or father of the employee." Such cases are common, and occasionally, such posts have come up in forums as well.
Not changing the nomination after marriage could be deliberate, or it might have happened inadvertently. Educating employees on the importance of changing the nomination after marriage is HR's duty. That is why I have written in my previous post about issuing a circular.
Final Comments: Overall, Indians are family-oriented. That is why we end up asking questions about one's personal life. In contrast, in the US, interviewers cannot ask anything about marital life or family to job candidates. There is a list of prohibited questions for interviewers. In India, such demarcating lines are not drawn. Another aspect is about openness. We disclose too many things about family voluntarily. Therefore, those who refuse to be part of this culture of disclosure become a "different kettle of fish," as said by Mr. Nathrao.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In your second post, you have written that "When asked directly in the system whether single/married/divorced...has chosen to give his answer as 'single'". On this, I would like to ask one simple question: Why would you like to know the marital status of the employee? If you wish to know at all, why have you not given the right to the employee to withhold the information? By making disclosures mandatory, are you not breaching the privacy of the employee?
This information pertains to the employee's personal life; therefore, it is secondary information. How can you link the disclosure of secondary information to the "integrity" of the employee?
The Supreme Court has told the Central Government not to make Aadhar card mandatory because it breaches the privacy of the individual. This is because ours is a democratic country, and democracy demands respecting the privacy of each citizen. Additionally, it was reported in the newspapers that our current Prime Minister, while filling out a form to contest the assembly election in the past, had left blank information about his marital status. However, while filling out the form for the Lok Sabha election, he disclosed that he is married. Nevertheless, for keeping the column blank about marital status, the Election Commission did not turn down the form of Mr. Narendra Modi. Therefore, what flexibility is the Election Commission ready to show, and why is the same flexibility your private limited company not ready to show?
If your logic is to be applied, then should we suspect our Prime Minister's integrity?
Today's HR has far more significant issues to look at. I humbly request you to solve the primary business issues rather than delving or prying into employees' personal affairs. My experience while dealing with HR shows that there are hundreds of things that HR is supposed to do or can do that they do not.
In the olden days, in all practical purposes, business owners behaved as if they were feudal lords. The rigid social order of yesteryears has been crumbling. The workplace of the 21st century is different. Today, the major focus is on competition and innovation. It appears that you are yet to come to terms with the norms of the modern workplace. Today, even the LGBT community has gained social sanction. Just ten years ago, anybody would have frowned at such a community.
For Mr. Nathrao: You have written that "[i]I know of cases where people have not changed the nomination after marriage and died with money/benefits then going to the mother or father of the employee." Such cases are common, and occasionally, such posts have come up in forums as well.
Not changing the nomination after marriage could be deliberate, or it might have happened inadvertently. Educating employees on the importance of changing the nomination after marriage is HR's duty. That is why I have written in my previous post about issuing a circular.
Final Comments: Overall, Indians are family-oriented. That is why we end up asking questions about one's personal life. In contrast, in the US, interviewers cannot ask anything about marital life or family to job candidates. There is a list of prohibited questions for interviewers. In India, such demarcating lines are not drawn. Another aspect is about openness. We disclose too many things about family voluntarily. Therefore, those who refuse to be part of this culture of disclosure become a "different kettle of fish," as said by Mr. Nathrao.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
In your second post, you have written that "When asked directly in the system whether single/married/divorced... has chosen to give his answer as 'single'". On this, I would like to ask one simple question: Why would you like to know the marital status of the employee? If you wish to know at all, why have you not given the right to the employee to withhold the information? By making disclosures mandatory, are you not breaching the privacy of the employee?
This information pertains to the employee's personal life; therefore, it is secondary information. How can you link the disclosure of secondary information to the "integrity" of the employee?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In your second post, you have written that "When asked directly in the system whether single/married/divorced... has chosen to give his answer as 'single'". On this, I would like to ask one simple question: Why would you like to know the marital status of the employee? If you wish to know at all, why have you not given the right to the employee to withhold the information? By making disclosures mandatory, are you not breaching the privacy of the employee?
This information pertains to the employee's personal life; therefore, it is secondary information. How can you link the disclosure of secondary information to the "integrity" of the employee?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
My second post was somehow getting truncated. Therefore, I have split the post into two parts. The leftover part is as below:
Supreme Court has told the Central Government not to make Aadhaar card mandatory because it breaches the privacy of the individual. This is because ours is a democratic country, and democracy demands respecting the privacy of each citizen. Secondly, it was reported in the newspapers that our current Prime Minister, while filling the form to contest the assembly election in the past, had left blank information about his marital status. However, while filling the form for the Lok Sabha election, he disclosed that he is married. Nevertheless, for keeping the column blank about marital status, the Election Commission did not turn down the form of Mr. Narendra Modi. Therefore, what flexibility even the Election Commission is ready to show, why the same flexibility your private limited company is not ready to show?
If your logic is to be applied, then should we suspect our Prime Minister's integrity?
Today's HR has far larger issues to look at. I humbly request you to solve the primary business issues rather than delving or prying into employees' personal affairs. My experience dealing with HR shows that there are hundreds of things that HR is supposed to do or can do that they do not do.
In olden days, for all practical purposes, business owners behaved as if they were feudal lords. The rigid social order of yesteryears has been crumbling. The workplace of the 21st century is different. Today, the major focus is on competition and innovation. It appears that you are yet to come to terms with the norms of the modern workplace. Today, even the LGBT community has gained social sanction. Just ten years ago, anybody would have frowned upon such a community.
For Mr. Nathrao: You have written, "I know of cases where people have not changed the nomination after marriage and died with money/benefits then going to the mother or father of the employee." Such cases are common, and occasionally such posts have come up in the forum as well.
Not changing the nomination after marriage could be deliberate, or it might have happened inadvertently. Educating employees on the importance of changing the nomination after marriage is HR's duty. That is why I have written in my previous post about issuing a circular.
Final Comments: Overall, Indians are family-oriented. That is why we end up asking questions about one's personal life. In contrast, in the US, interviewers cannot ask anything about marital life or family to the job candidate. There is a list of prohibited questions for the interviewers. In India, such demarcating lines are not drawn. Second thing is about openness too. We disclose too many things about the family voluntarily. Therefore, those who refuse to be part of this culture of disclosure become a different kettle of fish, as said by Mr. Nathrao.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My second post was somehow getting truncated. Therefore, I have split the post into two parts. The leftover part is as below:
Supreme Court has told the Central Government not to make Aadhaar card mandatory because it breaches the privacy of the individual. This is because ours is a democratic country, and democracy demands respecting the privacy of each citizen. Secondly, it was reported in the newspapers that our current Prime Minister, while filling the form to contest the assembly election in the past, had left blank information about his marital status. However, while filling the form for the Lok Sabha election, he disclosed that he is married. Nevertheless, for keeping the column blank about marital status, the Election Commission did not turn down the form of Mr. Narendra Modi. Therefore, what flexibility even the Election Commission is ready to show, why the same flexibility your private limited company is not ready to show?
If your logic is to be applied, then should we suspect our Prime Minister's integrity?
Today's HR has far larger issues to look at. I humbly request you to solve the primary business issues rather than delving or prying into employees' personal affairs. My experience dealing with HR shows that there are hundreds of things that HR is supposed to do or can do that they do not do.
In olden days, for all practical purposes, business owners behaved as if they were feudal lords. The rigid social order of yesteryears has been crumbling. The workplace of the 21st century is different. Today, the major focus is on competition and innovation. It appears that you are yet to come to terms with the norms of the modern workplace. Today, even the LGBT community has gained social sanction. Just ten years ago, anybody would have frowned upon such a community.
For Mr. Nathrao: You have written, "I know of cases where people have not changed the nomination after marriage and died with money/benefits then going to the mother or father of the employee." Such cases are common, and occasionally such posts have come up in the forum as well.
Not changing the nomination after marriage could be deliberate, or it might have happened inadvertently. Educating employees on the importance of changing the nomination after marriage is HR's duty. That is why I have written in my previous post about issuing a circular.
Final Comments: Overall, Indians are family-oriented. That is why we end up asking questions about one's personal life. In contrast, in the US, interviewers cannot ask anything about marital life or family to the job candidate. There is a list of prohibited questions for the interviewers. In India, such demarcating lines are not drawn. Second thing is about openness too. We disclose too many things about the family voluntarily. Therefore, those who refuse to be part of this culture of disclosure become a different kettle of fish, as said by Mr. Nathrao.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Members,
Vineeta: This is a real issue that has surfaced.
Dinesh Divekar: "This information pertains to an employee's personal life, therefore, it is secondary information. How can you link the disclosure of secondary information to the 'integrity' of the employee?"
You are absolutely right that this is secondary information. Therefore, it really should not matter whatever details the individual wants to give falling in that section. Employees are not comfortable sharing their personal information, primarily for personal security concerns, and we respect them for that.
Unfortunately, some employees are misusing the same. Innocent partners are being trapped for matrimony. This trait itself is disturbing enough for their integrity to be questioned.
Yes, there are courts and laws for it.
I totally agree and understand as to 'why should the workplace and the personal life' be linked. As we live in a society where a whole lot of things are inter-linked, like job, residence, city, etc.
Now, my basic question boils down to:
1. An individual is actually taking advantage of this and getting married by disclosing wrong information to unsuspecting individuals. (Mr. Dinesh - I totally understand and agree that a job and marriage have nothing to do with each other - but unfortunately, this is the only data available to a person.)
Therefore, should we as an organization do our bit towards society and ask for correct updates, so that such incidents can be minimized.
I am thankful for all the thoughts shared by the members.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Vineeta: This is a real issue that has surfaced.
Dinesh Divekar: "This information pertains to an employee's personal life, therefore, it is secondary information. How can you link the disclosure of secondary information to the 'integrity' of the employee?"
You are absolutely right that this is secondary information. Therefore, it really should not matter whatever details the individual wants to give falling in that section. Employees are not comfortable sharing their personal information, primarily for personal security concerns, and we respect them for that.
Unfortunately, some employees are misusing the same. Innocent partners are being trapped for matrimony. This trait itself is disturbing enough for their integrity to be questioned.
Yes, there are courts and laws for it.
I totally agree and understand as to 'why should the workplace and the personal life' be linked. As we live in a society where a whole lot of things are inter-linked, like job, residence, city, etc.
Now, my basic question boils down to:
1. An individual is actually taking advantage of this and getting married by disclosing wrong information to unsuspecting individuals. (Mr. Dinesh - I totally understand and agree that a job and marriage have nothing to do with each other - but unfortunately, this is the only data available to a person.)
Therefore, should we as an organization do our bit towards society and ask for correct updates, so that such incidents can be minimized.
I am thankful for all the thoughts shared by the members.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Dinesh Sir. Sometimes we bother unnecessarily, this is purely personal. Yet, once we know the secret information of someone, it creates some sorts of curiosity but of no use. As human beings, we do have many secrets in our lives, but do not disclose, and need not to be disclosed. Personal and professional lives are two different aspects.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think revealing marital status cannot be considered as not disclosing any secrets infringing personal life. Before we suggest anything, it's to be clarified whether the candidate either suppressed the facts when asked for/filled in the documents or no such things were asked for. If he was not asked to mention in the application or any declaration, then it need not be faulted. Whereas if he had mentioned "single" against the marital column, it's clearly a suppression of facts. (I remember one topmost politician was questioned more or less on the similar question, and his suppressed wife was denied a visa recently).
But I consider it is one of the primary duties of any HR to have such information in the personal files of all their employees for obvious reasons. I have no clue as to how their HR managed the "nomination" in PF, etc. Isn't that also where he mentioned as single and nominated others? I strongly feel obtaining such information (without making it known to others) is a better administrative practice.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
But I consider it is one of the primary duties of any HR to have such information in the personal files of all their employees for obvious reasons. I have no clue as to how their HR managed the "nomination" in PF, etc. Isn't that also where he mentioned as single and nominated others? I strongly feel obtaining such information (without making it known to others) is a better administrative practice.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"I think revealing marital status cannot be considered as not disclosing any secrets infringing personal life."
Absolutely right. A company needs to know who is the next of kin. God forbid there is an accident - whom to inform, whom to pay compensation. We cannot compare our culture with US culture. Do we have Western standards of quality work? Personal information forms get filled out in all organizations. Hiding marital status in the name of privacy is carrying things too far. Even if marital status can be assumed to be secondary information, hiding or lying about it definitely gives an indication that the employee never reveals full information about himself.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Absolutely right. A company needs to know who is the next of kin. God forbid there is an accident - whom to inform, whom to pay compensation. We cannot compare our culture with US culture. Do we have Western standards of quality work? Personal information forms get filled out in all organizations. Hiding marital status in the name of privacy is carrying things too far. Even if marital status can be assumed to be secondary information, hiding or lying about it definitely gives an indication that the employee never reveals full information about himself.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The information you are seeking is the status. However, your system has only single/married/divorced, which is incomplete. You must also include separated/in a relationship as options. A person could argue that since the system does not account for a separated status, they chose single status. First, you need to update your system to reflect current realities before considering punitive measures. In developed countries, companies are prohibited from inquiring about age, race, sex, sexual preference, marital status, or any other personal matters. It's essential to look ahead and adapt your systems accordingly.
From United+States, San+Francisco
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From United+States, San+Francisco
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Interesting discussion. If a person gives inaccurate information on marital status, it may be wrong morally. However, even in government service, no action could be taken if wrong information is furnished in the nomination forms. Moreover, from a legal point of view, a nominee is only a trustee who receives the benefits, in the exceptional circumstance of the death of the employee, on behalf of legal heirs. However, much complication could result if the employee furnishes incorrect information in the eventuality of their untimely demise.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"However, even in government service, no action could be taken if wrong information is furnished in the nomination forms.
When nomination forms are filled in by employees, the admin department checks them. Information not tallying with admin records is always supposed to be questioned and not accepted blindly.
"However, much complication could result if the employee furnishes incorrect information in the eventuality of his untimely demise."
Certainly. I know of cases where two "wives" have ended up, resulting in court cases to prove who is the legal heir. In the process, bulk non-effective/death benefits get held up, and lawyers earn their fees by taking up cases. All this because someone did not fill in forms properly, married twice without proper divorce, and hid information from the employer.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When nomination forms are filled in by employees, the admin department checks them. Information not tallying with admin records is always supposed to be questioned and not accepted blindly.
"However, much complication could result if the employee furnishes incorrect information in the eventuality of his untimely demise."
Certainly. I know of cases where two "wives" have ended up, resulting in court cases to prove who is the legal heir. In the process, bulk non-effective/death benefits get held up, and lawyers earn their fees by taking up cases. All this because someone did not fill in forms properly, married twice without proper divorce, and hid information from the employer.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Most of the government offices and PSUs have a system of collecting and keeping one's personal data in a format duly attested by any one of the first-class government officials at the time of employee joining itself. Employees are instructed to keep this information updated whenever changes occur. In some PSUs, it's known as an 'Attestation Form,' while others may have similar forms. The form is designed to obtain almost all related information, including the names of father, mother, siblings, any criminal/civil cases, property holdings including family members, and so on. It's advisable to introduce these formats and ensure all details are filled in, leaving nothing blank. Providing false information and leaving blanks are treated seriously and may even result in disciplinary actions and penalties.
Every year, property return updating is also strictly followed before qualifying for an annual increment.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Every year, property return updating is also strictly followed before qualifying for an annual increment.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Members,
Thank you very much for your views. The discussion has brought forth some very interesting points.
1. Legally, no action can be taken as there are a whole lot of loopholes.
2. Incorrect information provided when directly asked about a question should be taken seriously. (A soft warning given and the individual asked to update the areas correctly).
3. As a matter of routine, once a year, employees are requested to check and update their personal details.
4. When such information is deliberately suppressed, the company should take some action for this breach.
5. I would be thankful if you could suggest some more ways to curb this problem of "deliberate suppression of facts".
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for your views. The discussion has brought forth some very interesting points.
1. Legally, no action can be taken as there are a whole lot of loopholes.
2. Incorrect information provided when directly asked about a question should be taken seriously. (A soft warning given and the individual asked to update the areas correctly).
3. As a matter of routine, once a year, employees are requested to check and update their personal details.
4. When such information is deliberately suppressed, the company should take some action for this breach.
5. I would be thankful if you could suggest some more ways to curb this problem of "deliberate suppression of facts".
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"1. Legally, no action can be taken as there are a whole lot of loopholes.
4. When such information is deliberately suppressed, the company should take some action for this breach.
5. Will be thankful if you can suggest some more ways to curb this problem of "deliberate suppression of facts."
Legally? Yes, every employer is armed with their SOP or Conduct and Discipline Rules to deal with indiscipline among their employees. If you amend your SOP suitably, there is every possibility to tackle the noncompliance appropriately. Such things can form part of your performance appraisal criterion as well for granting an increment."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
4. When such information is deliberately suppressed, the company should take some action for this breach.
5. Will be thankful if you can suggest some more ways to curb this problem of "deliberate suppression of facts."
Legally? Yes, every employer is armed with their SOP or Conduct and Discipline Rules to deal with indiscipline among their employees. If you amend your SOP suitably, there is every possibility to tackle the noncompliance appropriately. Such things can form part of your performance appraisal criterion as well for granting an increment."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Smitha,
The marital status of an employee does not affect the image of the company; it is a personal issue for the employee, and their legal problems will not damage the company's reputation. As long as the employee is performing well, he/she may be retained. You can assess the performance through the appraisal method, which may be conducted monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annually. Only candidates who perform well should be retained.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The marital status of an employee does not affect the image of the company; it is a personal issue for the employee, and their legal problems will not damage the company's reputation. As long as the employee is performing well, he/she may be retained. You can assess the performance through the appraisal method, which may be conducted monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annually. Only candidates who perform well should be retained.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, LOGINMIRACLELOGISTICS.
Yes, this is very doable, and these simple measures can actually control significant complications that can be very time-consuming to solve. I appreciate your suggestion.
Furthermore, if a company is going to place their confidential work-related information in the hands of their employees, then it is not asking for too much that the employees be honest about certain details. (The ones where the company can also get dragged in for no fault of theirs—like bigamy, cheating, fraud, PF matters.)
For Dinesh: You gave an example of the current PM's non-disclosure and then disclosure of his marriage.
1. He withheld the information but did not give a false answer.
2. In case he had continued to follow this in other areas as well (non-disclosure...then disclose), I am sure all these will add up and would not be taken very lightly—even if we are a democracy. Discrepancies are discrepancies—whatever the area may be.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, this is very doable, and these simple measures can actually control significant complications that can be very time-consuming to solve. I appreciate your suggestion.
Furthermore, if a company is going to place their confidential work-related information in the hands of their employees, then it is not asking for too much that the employees be honest about certain details. (The ones where the company can also get dragged in for no fault of theirs—like bigamy, cheating, fraud, PF matters.)
For Dinesh: You gave an example of the current PM's non-disclosure and then disclosure of his marriage.
1. He withheld the information but did not give a false answer.
2. In case he had continued to follow this in other areas as well (non-disclosure...then disclose), I am sure all these will add up and would not be taken very lightly—even if we are a democracy. Discrepancies are discrepancies—whatever the area may be.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
We have faced many cases beset with bigamy, deuterogamy, digamy (in a couple of cases employees had more than one wife (one lived with 4 wives all in one house together, and on his demise, all fighting in court). We had to attend different courts to show our records and answer a barrage of questions from the claimants, advocates, and judges. We were questioned by the civil judges as to why we didn't keep our records updated to show the (latest!) family particulars. On many occasions, we were pulled up by the judges for not keeping the perfect record of legal spouses and their children supported with documents. These are disputed litigations not only for F & F settlement of the deceased but also for maintenance from living husbands who deserted them, dependent parents, unmarried/widowed sisters. In many cases, injunctions were issued. Our Labor Officers had to sit in unofficial panchayats to reach an amicable mutual agreement among them to cut short the legal process. There are a couple of cases still unsettled, where husbands who were posted/sent/transferred to sites are still not traceable. The legal wives are running pillar to post to feed their children with no documents left to support their claims, and official records drew a blank as they were obtained before marriage but were not kept updated due to staff lapses. India is full of such cases. There is no bar as educated or uneducated; it happens in many cases of innocent/ignorant, poor young girls from rural/urban backgrounds. I initially never believed the Pancha Pandavas of Mahabharat until these cases proved it. So, a vigilant administrator, especially HR, should not bother about privacy issues, etc., and should keep their records intact come what may. Let us err by doing but not by not doing, which will ultimately help us avoid embarrassments.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We have faced many cases beset with bigamy, deuterogamy, digamy (in a couple of cases employees had more than one wife (one lived with 4 wives all in one house together, and on his demise, all fighting in court). We had to attend different courts to show our records and answer a barrage of questions from the claimants, advocates, and judges. We were questioned by the civil judges as to why we didn't keep our records updated to show the (latest!) family particulars. On many occasions, we were pulled up by the judges for not keeping the perfect record of legal spouses and their children supported with documents. These are disputed litigations not only for F & F settlement of the deceased but also for maintenance from living husbands who deserted them, dependent parents, unmarried/widowed sisters. In many cases, injunctions were issued. Our Labor Officers had to sit in unofficial panchayats to reach an amicable mutual agreement among them to cut short the legal process. There are a couple of cases still unsettled, where husbands who were posted/sent/transferred to sites are still not traceable. The legal wives are running pillar to post to feed their children with no documents left to support their claims, and official records drew a blank as they were obtained before marriage but were not kept updated due to staff lapses. India is full of such cases. There is no bar as educated or uneducated; it happens in many cases of innocent/ignorant, poor young girls from rural/urban backgrounds. I initially never believed the Pancha Pandavas of Mahabharat until these cases proved it. So, a vigilant administrator, especially HR, should not bother about privacy issues, etc., and should keep their records intact come what may. Let us err by doing but not by not doing, which will ultimately help us avoid embarrassments.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If I recollect, the querist raised a question of morality or a deliberate lie/non-disclosure. It did not concern the nomination, which could be an offshoot of a wrongful (not necessarily illegal) act.
The first question that arose in my mind is: how does it affect the company?
A S Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The first question that arose in my mind is: how does it affect the company?
A S Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Member,
I believe marriage is a personal matter for employees. If he or she feels that they may not disclose it to society, including the employer, there may be some reasons. Therefore, we should not directly blame the employee. HR is not against the employee, so we need to discuss and understand the reasons for this behavior.
We should be more concerned about his or her performance at the workplace rather than personal matters, but morally one may choose to disclose it.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I believe marriage is a personal matter for employees. If he or she feels that they may not disclose it to society, including the employer, there may be some reasons. Therefore, we should not directly blame the employee. HR is not against the employee, so we need to discuss and understand the reasons for this behavior.
We should be more concerned about his or her performance at the workplace rather than personal matters, but morally one may choose to disclose it.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, there could be many hassles in exceptional cases because of the wrong information provided to the employee. However, there could be no law that can authorize the Controlling Officer or the Official Superior to adopt an officious approach and micromanage the personal affairs of the employees in their charge. This is particularly true in the case of public servants because it has been repeatedly held that they do not forfeit their Fundamental Rights by joining public service.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony v. Union of India, stated: "On joining Government service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favor of the Government. The Government, simply because it has the power to appoint, does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Government, by providing job opportunities to its citizens, only fulfills its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The employee, upon taking up employment, only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like Instrumentalities of the Government or Statutory or Autonomous Corporations, is regulated by the terms of the contract of service or Service Rules made by the Central or the State Government under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or other Statutory Rules, including Certified Standing Orders.
The fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution or basic human rights, are not surrendered by the employee."
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Supreme Court, in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony v. Union of India, stated: "On joining Government service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favor of the Government. The Government, simply because it has the power to appoint, does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Government, by providing job opportunities to its citizens, only fulfills its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The employee, upon taking up employment, only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like Instrumentalities of the Government or Statutory or Autonomous Corporations, is regulated by the terms of the contract of service or Service Rules made by the Central or the State Government under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or other Statutory Rules, including Certified Standing Orders.
The fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution or basic human rights, are not surrendered by the employee."
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Members,
Abedeen: Yes, there is a very fine line here.
1. We have different areas of life that overlap, and as 'Loginmiracelogistics' told us, although the company has nothing to do with an employee's personal life, yet whenever a problem arises, the company is dragged in. At that point, 'nobody' - not the court nor the law - buys the logic that it is personal.
2. As I mentioned, different areas overlap. In this particular case, the employee got married claiming to be unmarried and single, and the only place the lady could find out his previous records was the company. Unfortunately, there is no portal in our country to provide this information.
3. The marriage didn't last, and much later, the girl came to know his previous history.
4. I understand this is personal, but the girl claims because the records were clean, she married him.
5. Where does that leave us? Do we say we don't care, or that's her problem as she believed our records and took a decision?
6. Legally, nothing can be done, but it leaves a very bitter taste.
7. If such people are left scot-free and not questioned, we are encouraging this behavior. The court and law have too many loopholes.
Pvenu1953: Technically, you are right. Unfortunately, such 'exceptional cases' are on the rise. Most people, men/women, keep quiet about it, as they are ashamed to admit they have been duped.
History has shown, like in 'sati pratha', the court rulings didn't stop it. The awareness of the public stopped it. I appreciate all the views; it has brought out a lot of different aspects, and eventually, the issue is very subjective.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Abedeen: Yes, there is a very fine line here.
1. We have different areas of life that overlap, and as 'Loginmiracelogistics' told us, although the company has nothing to do with an employee's personal life, yet whenever a problem arises, the company is dragged in. At that point, 'nobody' - not the court nor the law - buys the logic that it is personal.
2. As I mentioned, different areas overlap. In this particular case, the employee got married claiming to be unmarried and single, and the only place the lady could find out his previous records was the company. Unfortunately, there is no portal in our country to provide this information.
3. The marriage didn't last, and much later, the girl came to know his previous history.
4. I understand this is personal, but the girl claims because the records were clean, she married him.
5. Where does that leave us? Do we say we don't care, or that's her problem as she believed our records and took a decision?
6. Legally, nothing can be done, but it leaves a very bitter taste.
7. If such people are left scot-free and not questioned, we are encouraging this behavior. The court and law have too many loopholes.
Pvenu1953: Technically, you are right. Unfortunately, such 'exceptional cases' are on the rise. Most people, men/women, keep quiet about it, as they are ashamed to admit they have been duped.
History has shown, like in 'sati pratha', the court rulings didn't stop it. The awareness of the public stopped it. I appreciate all the views; it has brought out a lot of different aspects, and eventually, the issue is very subjective.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
Of course, a rational advocate of marriage is one's personal affair, agreed. However, informing the same to the office/employer is not personal but mandatory official compliance for various obvious reasons. It is the prerogative of the administration, and if anybody is not willing to reveal this information, he/she shall have no place in the establishment.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, a rational advocate of marriage is one's personal affair, agreed. However, informing the same to the office/employer is not personal but mandatory official compliance for various obvious reasons. It is the prerogative of the administration, and if anybody is not willing to reveal this information, he/she shall have no place in the establishment.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Is there no lapse on the part of the company for having shared an employee's personal details with an outsider (that lady who believed these records) without the permission of the employee himself? What is disclosed to the company is in good confidence.
Of course, what has happened with the lady is very, very unfortunate.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, what has happened with the lady is very, very unfortunate.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
For a moment, I wonder how informing the name of a spouse amounts to interfering in the personal affairs of an employee, while all other information like DOB, sex, caste, religion, education qualifications (and marks obtained), blood group, full address, phone number, previous employers, including personal ID marks on one's body, etc., are on the records. I fail to understand why one should hide information about being married and whether the spouse is alive or not, especially from the employer. How on earth does it matter if colleagues know these facts, especially when living in a society where we celebrate all sorts of days, such as wedding day/anniversary, women's day, birthday of self, and even pets, mother's and father's day, etc.? Are we not inclined to share finer moments of our lives with our colleagues? What is the great necessity to keep the name of the spouse very confidential or secret, and for what purpose? We are neither Shah Rukh nor Salman, or Aishwarya nor Priyanka, to engage in gossip about ourselves. Moreover, this information is already available on the voters' list of the constituency, which is a public document that can be purchased or copied by anyone without restrictions. Where is the secrecy in that? Even Aadhaar Card information can be obtained by tipping. By advocating this to be a secret, we blindly tend to follow the Western norms without any purpose. However, keeping official records updated with crucial information only enables smooth administration and nothing beyond that. We have seen that such official documents help one's heirs to claim the right to inherited property, resolve age-related disputes, etc. Isn't it a healthy practice, especially in a country where all marriages have to be mandatorily registered with the appropriate authority?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Intimating your office that you are married/single/divorced does not violate privacy. It only gives a full picture of the employee, in conjunction with education, address, and other details.
Tomorrow, some employees may not want to give their address, saying their privacy is being infringed upon. Every HR department should ensure that the privacy of personal data is maintained, and no leaks should be permitted.
Every employee should voluntarily make relevant disclosures about their marital status, and it should not be a big issue.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Tomorrow, some employees may not want to give their address, saying their privacy is being infringed upon. Every HR department should ensure that the privacy of personal data is maintained, and no leaks should be permitted.
Every employee should voluntarily make relevant disclosures about their marital status, and it should not be a big issue.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Smita - Not disclosing/withholding marital status does not reflect on the employee's integrity!! It is certainly not a deciding factor of the employee's nature as well. Marital status should not be asked only.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Members,
Thank you so much for such an overwhelming response. Yes, these are sensitive issues, but living in a society, we do touch each other's lives in more than one way. Truly well said, "that we are human first."
There is nothing wrong in being married or divorced once or more - that choice is personal, but to hide it would be deception from at least the partner. We are trying to align this, but there are always a few who oppose it. HR professionals have a lot on their plate, and we should just simplify the process as much as possible. Hence, be firm about correct personal data inputs.
Thank you once again for bringing the human element in this Electronic age.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you so much for such an overwhelming response. Yes, these are sensitive issues, but living in a society, we do touch each other's lives in more than one way. Truly well said, "that we are human first."
There is nothing wrong in being married or divorced once or more - that choice is personal, but to hide it would be deception from at least the partner. We are trying to align this, but there are always a few who oppose it. HR professionals have a lot on their plate, and we should just simplify the process as much as possible. Hence, be firm about correct personal data inputs.
Thank you once again for bringing the human element in this Electronic age.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My view (please see page 3 of this thread) is that an employer should equally be held at fault for disclosing personal information relating to an employee to an outsider without the employee's permission. This perspective seems to not be eliciting any comments from the various contributors to this thread, and I am unsure why. Regardless of whether the employee in question has not made a complete or updated disclosure, it does not absolve the employer.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Bhat,
We are dealing with a much bigger issue here - how to curb false information and contain irregularities that lead to fraud, cheating, and lies. Whatever small contribution we can make towards cleaning up the system will help. Yes, someone working in the same company at the level of a Manager has access to this information. The main point is: why should an individual create a discrepancy? Is it okay for an employee to provide false misleading information, whether it is accessible or not is beside the point.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We are dealing with a much bigger issue here - how to curb false information and contain irregularities that lead to fraud, cheating, and lies. Whatever small contribution we can make towards cleaning up the system will help. Yes, someone working in the same company at the level of a Manager has access to this information. The main point is: why should an individual create a discrepancy? Is it okay for an employee to provide false misleading information, whether it is accessible or not is beside the point.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
Please explain the necessity of declaring their marital status to all the employees. This is mainly required when paying out the terminal benefits to the legal heirs. If one does not disclose the details, family members will have to struggle to obtain the terminal benefits from the organization. Sometimes, due to the unavailability of details about the family members, the terminal benefits may end up in the hands of the wrong individuals. The rightful beneficiaries may not receive the benefits, and the loved ones of the employees will have to resort to legal proceedings to claim what is rightfully theirs. This can be a lengthy and time-consuming process.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please explain the necessity of declaring their marital status to all the employees. This is mainly required when paying out the terminal benefits to the legal heirs. If one does not disclose the details, family members will have to struggle to obtain the terminal benefits from the organization. Sometimes, due to the unavailability of details about the family members, the terminal benefits may end up in the hands of the wrong individuals. The rightful beneficiaries may not receive the benefits, and the loved ones of the employees will have to resort to legal proceedings to claim what is rightfully theirs. This can be a lengthy and time-consuming process.
Thank you.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ms. Smita,
The question was raised by me so that some senior contributors could offer their opinions on it. The company expects full disclosure from the employee, which is fine. However, the employee also expects that it be kept fully confidential. Is that not fine?
The fact that the employee has access to some other manager is besides the point...
Anyway, I will not respond further to this thread, considering it closed from my side. I will only read others' views.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The question was raised by me so that some senior contributors could offer their opinions on it. The company expects full disclosure from the employee, which is fine. However, the employee also expects that it be kept fully confidential. Is that not fine?
The fact that the employee has access to some other manager is besides the point...
Anyway, I will not respond further to this thread, considering it closed from my side. I will only read others' views.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"The company expects the employee's full disclosure. Fine. The employee also expects that it be fully confidential. Not fine?"
The employee is expected to make truthful disclosures, but HR is expected to treat this type of information confidential. Access to this info will always be available to laid-down levels of personnel - manager HR, for example. However, letting information flow into the public domain is not in order.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The employee is expected to make truthful disclosures, but HR is expected to treat this type of information confidential. Access to this info will always be available to laid-down levels of personnel - manager HR, for example. However, letting information flow into the public domain is not in order.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
First of all, even if the person is married and has listed his/her emergency contact number as that of a relative, would you call the emergency number or wait to speak to the spouse?
Secondly, if the divorce process is ongoing, what should he say? "Married but going through a divorce" (there is no such option).
Third, if a person has nominated someone in the statutory papers (e.g., his wife), but there is a contest of the will upon death, the organizations have to wait until the court orders are in place.
Fourthly, if the employee has been working with you for 4 years, shouldn't you have assessed his integrity during this time? It seems like a stretch.
Fifthly, how can a company reveal a person's personal or salary details to any third party? This is a breach of privacy, even if it is for marriage purposes.
Lastly, just because he is getting married for the second time and has applied for divorce both times, it does not make him any less faithful. He has been with the organization for the entire 4 years. Does this mean that personal life is more important than his work performance?
Conclusion: Do not dwell on these secondary pieces of information for too long. As HR professionals, we have many more important tasks to focus on.
Regards,
Ashutosh Thakre
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First of all, even if the person is married and has listed his/her emergency contact number as that of a relative, would you call the emergency number or wait to speak to the spouse?
Secondly, if the divorce process is ongoing, what should he say? "Married but going through a divorce" (there is no such option).
Third, if a person has nominated someone in the statutory papers (e.g., his wife), but there is a contest of the will upon death, the organizations have to wait until the court orders are in place.
Fourthly, if the employee has been working with you for 4 years, shouldn't you have assessed his integrity during this time? It seems like a stretch.
Fifthly, how can a company reveal a person's personal or salary details to any third party? This is a breach of privacy, even if it is for marriage purposes.
Lastly, just because he is getting married for the second time and has applied for divorce both times, it does not make him any less faithful. He has been with the organization for the entire 4 years. Does this mean that personal life is more important than his work performance?
Conclusion: Do not dwell on these secondary pieces of information for too long. As HR professionals, we have many more important tasks to focus on.
Regards,
Ashutosh Thakre
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear BOSS2966,
It varies from company to company what mandatory information they want from their employees. This is not an individual's decision but a format. We are back to square one. If asked a question - Should an employee 1. Answer correctly 2. Answer as per what he feels like, whether it is false or misleading.
Members, there is nothing personal here. We are just trying to find the best way to handle such situations.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It varies from company to company what mandatory information they want from their employees. This is not an individual's decision but a format. We are back to square one. If asked a question - Should an employee 1. Answer correctly 2. Answer as per what he feels like, whether it is false or misleading.
Members, there is nothing personal here. We are just trying to find the best way to handle such situations.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
If an employee deliberately falsifies personal information and it does not have any undue effect on financial matters, then in the case of any benefits declared by the company based on the merits of the personal information, he will not receive them.
If an employee deliberately falsifies details about Union membership, political party membership, arrest, or FIR filing details at any Police Station, then HR has the power to terminate the employee or conduct an inquiry to determine the reason for falsifying information. Based on the inquiry, the employee can be punished.
If an employee deliberately falsifies details about his family, in the event of any untoward incident, his family members, legal heirs, or nominees will not receive immediate relief on sympathy grounds from the organization. This is because the correct details were not provided initially or subsequently when requested. Consequently, family members or legal heirs may struggle to obtain the employee's terminal benefits, having to submit proof. Even after submission, the organization may delay payment for years.
The ultimate loser will always be the employee, not the organization.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If an employee deliberately falsifies personal information and it does not have any undue effect on financial matters, then in the case of any benefits declared by the company based on the merits of the personal information, he will not receive them.
If an employee deliberately falsifies details about Union membership, political party membership, arrest, or FIR filing details at any Police Station, then HR has the power to terminate the employee or conduct an inquiry to determine the reason for falsifying information. Based on the inquiry, the employee can be punished.
If an employee deliberately falsifies details about his family, in the event of any untoward incident, his family members, legal heirs, or nominees will not receive immediate relief on sympathy grounds from the organization. This is because the correct details were not provided initially or subsequently when requested. Consequently, family members or legal heirs may struggle to obtain the employee's terminal benefits, having to submit proof. Even after submission, the organization may delay payment for years.
The ultimate loser will always be the employee, not the organization.
From India, Kumbakonam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Tamilnadu conferment to permanant status to workmen notification-13 .jpg
West Bengal Minimum Wages Notification 1st July 2017.pdf