一家领先的英国客服中心(call centre)运营商发现，一位负责电话销售的新员工害怕面对尴尬处境。这时，这家公司召来了律师。
在工作申请中，这位雇员在一份声称自己没有任何健康问题的体检表上签了字。当发现她患有一种疾病，使她无法对冷静地给潜在客户打电话时，这家公司感觉自己受骗了。但是，在一个据信人们普遍会在履历撒点无伤大雅的小谎的年代，该公司得到的法律建议是，它很难因为说谎而将这位员工解雇。
“人们可能会说，‘你不喜欢我是因为我有残疾，而完全不是因为申请工作时撒谎’，”英国律师事务所Nabarro的就业合伙人休•阿什蒂亚尼(Sue Ashtiany)表示。“雇主很难证明，它们因某人最初撒谎而对其失去了信心。”
今年，人力资源顾问机构“如鱼得水”公司(Water for Fish)的一项调查发现，48%的英国雇员在工作申请中言过其实。在询问了1000多名成年雇员后，该调查发现，最常见的小谎言包括美化运动成绩以及慈善或社区工作。更严重的欺骗包括资格证明、就业和求学时间相互矛盾，以及对法律判决和以前的管理职位避而不谈。但是，尽管潜在雇主核实应聘者的资格证明是完全合法的，但很少有公司这么做。
英国律师事务所Eversheds人力资源部门的合伙人欧文•沃诺克(Owen Warnock)表示：“许多雇主就是不核实他们得到的信息，这就是雇员们往往喜欢吹嘘或是删去简历中那些不利内容的原因。”
他表示，潜在雇主可以给应聘者的大学或前雇主打电话查证细节，甚至可以聘用私人侦探。“检查垃圾箱不太可能有用，但可能是合法的，而窃听电话绝对是违法的，”他表示。“私人侦探的多数做法，包括与人交谈，都是完全合法的。没有法律禁止你问问题。”但他建议在核实背景时告诉应聘者，以免在他们自己发现后造成尴尬。
促使雇主聘用代理机构对应聘者进行背景调查的主要原因是，在提供证明材料方面的政策越来越严格。在许多国家的应聘者成功地起诉前雇主提供不利证明信息导致自己收入减少后，越来越多的企业开始只考察就职时间。
阿什蒂亚尼指出：“在金融服务业，监管机构要求雇主为从事被监管工作的人提供坦率而诚实的证明材料，但实际上，许多雇主只提供最低限度的证明信息。”
如果在某人被任命后谎言才露馅，那么未核实应聘者信息就可能对公司不利。一年以后，英国的员工会拥有控告不公平解雇的权利。如果那时候发现有人没有自称的学位，雇主在解雇他们之前还得证明他们没有能力做这份工作。
英国律师事务所Wragge & Co的合伙人特雷弗•吉布森(Trevor Gibson)援引了最近发生的一个案例，在这个案例中，一家公司在没有核实证明材料的情况下就任命了一位董事。公司的录用通知没有将令人满意的参考材料作为条件，这意味着，即使在还没有开始工作时就发现申请存在缺陷，也必须遵守解雇程序，就好像这个人已经被雇用了一样。
常常只有在一段时间的工作表现欠佳引发纪律处分程序(disciplinary proceedings)之后，反常之处才会被发现。阿什蒂亚尼表示：“在就职第一年出现问题后，你回顾招聘程序，发现工作经历中存在一大段没有原因的空白，这段空白没有引起注意，或是证明材料没有经过核实，这种案件的比例非常高。”
不过，尽管核实可以防止倒霉事情发生，但不能凭简历上的一个谎言就歧视雇员。如果雇主发现自己雇用的是一个工会维权人士或一个怀孕妇女，尽管在面试中，雇主听到的是另一番情况，但是，雇员没说实话也不能让法院认定解雇是公平的。
沃诺克表示：“典型的案例涉及某人在工作经历中声称了一些不实信息，或者通过编造工作隐瞒失业期。你可以通过与前任雇主核实来发现所有这些问题。”
When
a leading UK call- centre operator discovered one of its new telephone sales staff suffered from a fear of embarrassing situations, it called in the lawyers.
In her job application, the employee signed a medical form declaring she had a clean bill of health. On discovery of a condition that stopped her cold-calling potential customers, the company felt it had been duped. But in an age when fibbing on a curriculum vitae is believed to be widely practised, the legal advice was that it would be difficult to dismiss her for lying.
“People can say, ’You don’t like me because I have a disability and it is nothing to do with the lie on the job application’,” says Sue Ashtiany, an employment partner with Nabarro, a UK law firm. “It is very hard for the employer to prove they have lost confidence in someone because of the initial untruth.”
This year, a survey by Water for Fish, a human resources consultancy, found 48 per cent of UK workers exaggerated in job applications. Asking more than 1,000 employed adults, it found the most popular fibs included embellishments of sporting achievements and charitable or community work. More serious deceit involved qualifications, discrepancies in employment and academic dates and keeping quiet about legal judgments and previous directorships. But while it is perfectly legal for a prospective employer to check a candidate’s qualifications, few do.
Owen Warnock, a partner in the human resources department at UK law firm Eversheds, says: “A great many employers just don’t check the information they are given and that’s why employees tend to either exaggerate or remove things from their CV that are unfavourable.”
He says prospective employers can call a university or previous employer to verify details or even hire private investigators. “Checking rubbish bins is unlikely to be useful but is probably lawful while phone tapping clearly isn’t,” he says. “Most of what private investigators do, which is just talking to people, is entirely legal. There’s no law stopping you from asking questions.” But he does advise telling a candidate of any background checks in order to avoid embarrassment if they find out independently.
Much of what drives employers to hire agencies to perform background checks on job applicants is a move towards stricter policies on giving references. After job candidates in a number of countries successfully sued former employers for loss of earnings caused by unfavourable references, companies increasingly confirm little more than duration of employment.
Ms Ashtiany says: “In financial services, regulators require employers to be open and honest in their references for people conducting regulated work but, otherwise, a lot of employers just give bare-minimum references.”
Failure to check on a job candidate can count against a company if a lie is uncovered after someone has been appointed. After a year, workers in the UK have unfair dismissal rights. If it is then found that someone does not have the degree they claimed, employers still have to prove they can’t do the job before sacking them.
Trevor Gibson, a partner at UK law firm Wragge & Co, cites a recent case in which a company appointed a director without checking references. The job offer was not made conditional on satisfactory references, which meant that, when flaws were found in the application before the employment started, dismissal procedures had to be followed as if the individual was already employed.
Irregularities are often uncovered only after a period of poor performance in employment sparks disciplinary proceedings. “In a very high proportion of cases, where something goes wrong in the first year of employment, you go back to the recruitment process and find there was perhaps a long unexplained gap in the work history that wasn’t picked up or that references weren’t checked,” Ms Ashtiany says.
But while checks can prevent mishaps, discrimination cannot be justified by a lie on a CV. If an employer discovers it has taken on a trade union activist or a pregnant woman despite being told otherwise in interview, that untruth is unlikely to convince a tribunal that a sacking is fair.
“The typical case involves someone claiming something in their job history that isn’t true,” says Mr Warnock, “or covering up for a period of unemployment by making up a job. You can find out all that by checking with former employers.”