Any HR representatives know anything about www.backcheck.ca?

[loopdokter]

For the first time EVER in my 15 years of working and starting new jobs, I've had a company hand me a sheet that checks my references using a service called 'Backcheck'. www.backcheck.ca

I am friendly with certain elements of management at my old position and they are cool with providing me with letters of reference and even a proper reference. HOWEVER, my terms of leaving said company are not pretty and I was wrongfully dismissed due to an injury I sustained. I went to the Ontario Board of Labour as a result of this and actually won my case. As such, I'm somewhat worried about this Backcheck place actually checking with the actual company I worked for instead of just the individual references I quoted on this sheet I've filled out.

Is anyone working within a human resources department that deals with hiring first-hand familiar with this service and just how deeply they dig to verify your references? Their website suggests they dig pretty deeply, but I suspect that will only be from the employers side. I doubt very much there's an asterisk beside the 'terminated' portion of my employment record at my former company denoting that I was wrongfully dismissed.

I'm about 90% sure that if my references clear that I will be working a pretty cool new job. I want this job REALLY badly.

Many thanks.

Cheers,
J<

 

[loopdokter]

Anyone?

 

[sheik rock]

I'm not a hundred percent sure but I think backcheck just checks your police record in north america and makes sure all the certifications you claim are actually true. Also It might check your credit history.

I'll ask my boss tomorrow as we use this service.

 

[L'ilMisSunshine]

maybe pm tribe HR residents, diwc and Rude 1247 ?

 

[loopdokter]

I'm not a hundred percent sure but I think backcheck just checks your police record in north america and makes sure all the certifications you claim are actually true. Also It might check your credit history.

I'll ask my boss tomorrow as we use this service.

Muchos gracias.

Haha. If they check my credit... Oh dear. Not that I think they would. It's totally irrelevant to my job.

Cheers,
J<

 

[Thumpr]

in the U.S. potential employers regularly check an applicants credit history regardless of postion and deny employment if it isn't up to snuff.

 

[veteze]

well if we read the website - link provided by you:

Criminal Record Check
BackCheck’s Canadian Criminal Record Checks are fast, convenient, and compliant with PIPEDA and Canadian privacy and human rights legislation. BackCheck’s Criminal Record Checks are based on information maintained on file by the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). Support your company with the Criminal Record information required to prevent the hiring of unsuitable individuals.

• 10.7% of Canadians have a Criminal Record
• 1 business day turnaround

Canadian Credit Bureau Inquiry
A Canadian Credit Bureau Inquiries provide your company with a candidate’s, address history, credit worthiness, an indication of legal items, bankruptcies and collection registered against the candidate, and other information that helps to confirm the accuracy of the candidate’s claims. The Credit Inquiry also serves to indicate the candidate’s financial responsibility and present debt load. A Credit Inquiry is often the only place that one can discover fraudulent banking information.

• 22% of candidates have poor credit or ID inconsistencies
• 1 business day turnaround

Reference Interview this is probably that one you want to worry about
Employment Reference Interviews are composed of direct queries with the supplied references of the candidate, and where possible, with unlisted references. BackCheck performs at least three employment references based on the past employers listed by the candidate on the release forms. The hiring manager ensures the Release form is filled out completely so as to include three eligible references, such as managers, supervisors, human resources department staff, executives, and/or owners.

1. BackCheck creates a “barrier” between the candidate and the past employer (the reference). This encourages references to be honest about situations that they may otherwise avoid sharing. what the hell does this mean?
2. Saves time for recruiters and managers. Conducting Employment References involves telephone tag. Our researchers are available all day to make and receive calls.
3. BackCheck ensures that thorough reference checks are taken every time

• 11% of candidates have a red flag in regards to their past employment.
• 2 business day turnaround: Often faster than you can do them in house.

Employment Verification
Work History Verifications involve contacting previous employers to confirm dates of employment, the position held and status upon termination. Wherever possible, brief references are taken. Employment History is one of the most common areas of embellishment on a resume. BackCheck strives to contact head office representative of past employers and verify specifics of employment.

• Industry averages indicate that as many as 30% of candidates exaggerate on their resume.
• 2 business day average turnaround

Education Verification
Canadian Education Verifications are obtained through interviews with representatives of the Educational Institutions listed by the candidate. Ensure job requirements are met. Ensure honesty.

• 10% of candidates make exaggerated claims on their resume with regards to their education.
• 2 business day turnaround: We leverage our relationships with educational institutions across Canada to get information faster.

And there are a couple more. I guess it depends on what services the company you've interviewed with has purchased from backcheck. Sounds to me like you're screwed though.

You could try saying no on the sheet to the employment history check. Or just come clean on the info before backcheck gets your old employers version of the events instead.

 

[loopdokter]

Reference Interview this is probably that one you want to worry about
Employment Reference Interviews are composed of direct queries with the supplied references of the candidate, and where possible, with unlisted references. BackCheck performs at least three employment references based on the past employers listed by the candidate on the release forms. The hiring manager ensures the Release form is filled out completely so as to include three eligible references, such as managers, supervisors, human resources department staff, executives, and/or owners.

1. BackCheck creates a “barrier” between the candidate and the past employer (the reference). This encourages references to be honest about situations that they may otherwise avoid sharing. what the hell does this mean?
2. Saves time for recruiters and managers. Conducting Employment References involves telephone tag. Our researchers are available all day to make and receive calls.
3. BackCheck ensures that thorough reference checks are taken every time

• 11% of candidates have a red flag in regards to their past employment.
• 2 business day turnaround: Often faster than you can do them in house.

This is indeed the one I'm worried about (and I did read this). I will reluctantly provide the company info but like I said, I doubt very much my former employer has it on record that I was wrongfully dismissed because they were assholes and couldn't deal with the fact that I was legitamately hurt in a car accident. Thus, if they just check the actual references I'll be fine because these are people I worked for and they are entirely familiar with my capabilities as an employee.

The fact that I was 'terminated' (by HR, not management) and that the management are still willing to vouch for me should speak volumes to my current potential employer, but will likely go amiss in a situation like this one.

Cheers,
J<

 

[loopdokter]

in the U.S. potential employers regularly check an applicants credit history regardless of postion and deny employment if it isn't up to snuff.

They can get away with a lot more in the US than they can here (legally, at least).

This is a Canadian company I'd be working for, anway.

Cheers,
J<

 

[daddyiwantchocolate]

That board of labour decision doesn't mean anything when getting references checked.

What you should have done is gotten a lawyer and had it sorted out, but what I'm vaguely recalling is that you gave your rights away to take further action after bringing it to the board of labour, and ultimately you're fucked.

Doesn't matter who fired you, or for what reason - their records, your file, and your ROE will state that you were shitcanned for cause. The company records are all that this company is concerned about.

Any reference provided is checked with the company HR dept (i.e. they don't just call up random and work and believe who they say they are), and basic HR questions are asked. Absolutely included in these questions are: dates of hire, title, role and the most impoartant one of all "what was the reason for loopy to leave your company?'.

 

[Rude1_247]

you're fucked, dood.

The big question that really puts it up your pooper is the "reason for termination of employment" one. Most smart HR departments simply give undeniable facts when background checking companies call them, sticking to details on your ROE. Chances are that your ROE still says terminated with cause (there are a series of letter codes... you should have gotten your ROE with your last pay stub from your previous employer, check the code and see what it says).

In hindsight, you should have sewn this up with the proper legal support, however since you've kind of got to deal with the reality at hand, I'd suggest contacting your previous employer's HR department, informing them that a potential employer will be contacting them with regards to your employment history, and that you expect them to inform the background checker that you were terminated without cause as stated in the labour board's decision.

Either way, get this shit sorted out with the proper legal support, stat. It has the potential to fuck you for years if you're not careful.

 

[lucky1]

background check is done after the interview, so why not make note of the situation in the interview? You know at the end when they ask if any questions or anything you want to clarify? Or when they ask the reason for leaving your last job.. Or you can contact the manager following the interveiw and give a written notice of the situation, and furthur intstructions (ie contact the labour board decision). Or on the reference sheet give you manager you are freindly with's name. IME all my references are former managers / supervisor and not Johny Nobody in HR.

 

[AgentSanchez]

I second the idea of going to HR - make sure you speak with senior management. I would also want to ensure that said HR department was CRYSTAL CLEAR with the fact that they might be held liable for presenting false information (i.e. saying you were terminated with cause).

 

[jazzsax]

tell em your friends in woodbridge will mess with them if they say something wrong.

 

[daddyiwantchocolate]

loopy, are you sure you went to the Labour Board and NOT the Board of Referees?

If it was the Board of Referees, did the company represent itself at the 'hearing'?

If it was the Labour Board, did you seek entitlement to termination pay or severance pay?

 

[Ditto Much]

They can get away with a lot more in the US than they can here (legally, at least).

This is a Canadian company I'd be working for, anway.

Cheers,
J<

Yup, and as a standard they do a criminal check and a credit check down here. As well its clearly stated that at any time for any reason they can request that you present yourself to a company doctor for a drug test.

It was kind of funny in my case as I didn't have a social security number yet or a bank account for that matter and they didn't check any canadian records so I came back as basically not exsisting.




Why is it you always get the cutie hottie HR girl when you get hired and the gruff one when you get let go...

 

[judge wopner]

this sort of thing happens all the time.

old employers from larger companies wont be likely to smear your name, especially if the labour board ruled in your favour as they could face legal action.

hence the reason why alot of big banks dont give personal refernces only confirmation of your period of employment and results of your performance reviews after getting sued for a shitload.

if anything consider calling your old employer if you are on speaking terms to discuss it and let them know you have used them as a reference. if not then be ready to provide an outline of the occurance including the labour board's decision if the new company asks you.

provide the info in an unbiased and factual manner without personalizing things.

good luck

 

[daddyiwantchocolate]

old employers from larger companies wont be likely to smear your name, especially if the labour board ruled in your favour as they could face legal action.

not completely true - outgoing companies are can also be taken to court by the incoming company for providing inaccurate references if they DON'T tell the truth and it results in them hiring a fuck-up. labour board decisions may or may not mean anything WRT references, depending on a couple factors.

loopy, if you answer those questions, I'd better be able to tell you if there's anything you can do.

 

[Rude1_247]

this sort of thing happens all the time.

old employers from larger companies wont be likely to smear your name, especially if the labour board ruled in your favour as they could face legal action.

hence the reason why alot of big banks dont give personal refernces only confirmation of your period of employment and results of your performance reviews after getting sued for a shitload.

Not sure if you read the other posts in this thread, but that's actually the cause of the problem. If he was originally terminated with cause, and he didn't go through the proper legal channels to get it fixed, his ROE will still say he was terminated with cause.

It's not a question of "smearing your name", they're just relaying the straight-up facts on his ROE.

Loopster, more deets = more helpful insight.

 

[LeoGirl]

in the U.S. potential employers regularly check an applicants credit history regardless of postion and deny employment if it isn't up to snuff.

I've had my credit checked by employers before and never understood exactly what purpose it served. I may have less than ideal credit but it doesn't mean I'm unrealiable / irresponsible at work (speaking from experience of course).

speaking of which - I had a dream last night that I got a gold teddy bear sticker for having exceptional credit.

 

[judge wopner]

Not sure if you read the other posts in this thread, but that's actually the cause of the problem. If he was originally terminated with cause, and he didn't go through the proper legal channels to get it fixed, his ROE will still say he was terminated with cause.

It's not a question of "smearing your name", they're just relaying the straight-up facts on his ROE.

Loopster, more deets = more helpful insight.

agreed but what im refering to is the context of cause.

the boss of his company may think he was a lying jerk for faking an injury or something as such but if the labour board ruled the law was on his side then it should act as a footnote to that termination.

im refering to companies scuttling your chances by bringing up bad things about you as opposed to being objective in their account of your employement, especially if there were conflicts at some point.

 

[loopdokter]

Sorry, I haven't been able to get back to the replies in this thread until now. MANY thanks for them, by the way!

I went to the Ontario Board of Labour DIWC, not the Board of Referees. I still have the decision that was made. I was provided 2 weeks severence (the minimum required - of course) once I won the case.

All of the references I have are management, not HR but if they go to HR it will state that I was terminated on my ROE (code M I believe?). My former company will not provide me with a reference. The HR department is who I had the troubles with anyway.

That said, my interviewer was 'aware' of my former company's reputation for flying off the handle and doing all sorts of crazy things. I've been in other interviews where the interviewer has also been aware of this.

Hope that helps? I'm holding off faxing this thing in until I hear back from you guys. Hehe.

Cheers,
J<

 

[judge wopner]

I went to the Ontario Board of Labour DIWC, not the Board of Referees.

ah the Board of Referees,

almost as cool a name as the Office of the Umpire

 

[loopdokter]

I should also point out that the phone numbers I provided on my references are that of the individual managers, not the actual company.

I'm used to giving references of my personal character, not ones that check with HR.

Fuck.

Cheers,
J<

 

[daddyiwantchocolate]

If it was the Labour Board, did you seek entitlement to termination pay or severance pay?

Okay, so the answer was yes.

Was your employer involved in the discussions?
I believe they have the option to attend, but in many cases they don't.

Were you cc'd on any communications from the Labour Board to your company regarding the change of code on your ROE? These are always hard copy letters.