On November 5, I’ll be speaking at the Chicago chapter of Financial Executives International (FEI), along with my colleagues below. This is a morning meeting at the Rosewood in Rosemont.

On November 6, 2009, Ill be presenting my 2nd “Assessing Business Liabilities – A Legal & Accounting Perspective” seminar.  Like my 1st seminar, I’ll be presenting with 3 other attorneys & a CPA. This is at the Silver Stallion Restaurant, 1274 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL (breakfast will be served).  The seminar is free.

The focus of this seminar is assessing a business’ liabilities from the legal & accounting perspectives. Attendees will be able to ask questions about your their own business’ situation.

Topics will include:

• Reducing Income Tax Liabilities
• Real Estate Assessment & Taxes
• Employee Problems & Human Resources
• Intellectual Property – Value & Potential Problems
• Partner Agreements – Dispute Resolution

Speakers are:

• Frederick R. Dempsey – Real Estate Tax Appeals Attorney
• Leon Edelson – Intellectual Property Attorney
• Scott Greenberg – CPA
• Me
• Barry Mortge – Attorney for Closely Held Businesses

ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED AS SPACE IS LIMITED; RSVP By AUGUST 14th

For more information and to register, please call Ivey at 847-299-9901 or e-mail her at i.compall@hgaltd1.com; you can also contact me.

Presented by Hirsch Greenberg Accounting Ltd
950 Lee St
Des Plaines IL

We’re doing 2-3 more of these seminars before year’s end.  I’ll post that information as it becomes available.

This post was contributed by Heather Johnson, who writes on the subject of video production manager.  This is Heather’s second post to my site. Her first article, regarding employee complaints, can be found here.  She invites your feedback at heatherjohnson2323@gmail.com.  Some of my own comments follow Heather’s article. Thanks again Heather.

It’s not something that organizations, particularly their HR departments, are too enthusiastic about, but exit interviews are a rich source of information that companies can use positively as they grow in age and experience. Exit interviews, if not framed and structured properly, end up either being a useless exercise or one that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth with unnecessary recriminations and blame. Here are a few guidelines for HR managers to follow when conducting exit interviews:

• The best exit interviews are those conducted face to face, preferably by someone who is not known to the employee, either an outsider or someone from another department. Direct supervisors or managers are the worst choices to hold these interviews. If an employee is not too keen on a direct meeting, a questionnaire could be used to procure the necessary information.

• A useful exit interview must capture employees’ honest opinion of the company, their reasons for leaving, their suggestions for improvement within the company, any problems they may have had within the company, and their views on compensation and job satisfaction. It must also focus on retrieving knowledge specific and relevant to the employee who is leaving, such as contacts and methods that could be used to find and train suitable replacements.

• Exit interviews are more suited to employees who are resigning or leaving the company on their own volition rather than for those who have been laid off or terminated on other grounds. The latter kind would not be too cooperative and the answers they provide may not be a true reflection of the work conditions that prevail in the organization.

• No employee should be forced to attend exit interviews – they must be completely voluntary. Employees must be informed about the purpose of the interview and asked if they would return to the company, if asked, at some future date.

• Exit interviews must not be undertaken as exercises either to defend the company’s policies and practices or to conduct a post mortem on the employee’s performance within the company. The interviewer must adopt a polite and courteous attitude towards the leaving employee, even if the parting of ways is not too amicable.

• The information one infers from an exit interview is most important to the company – allegations and allusions to personal attributes and characteristics do not help. What does make a difference are details that can help improve the company’s management practices and policies in a way to improve customer and employee retention.

Organizations would do well to assess the importance of conducting regular employee feedback sessions during the course of their employment rather than conduct exit interviews after they announce their resignation. While employees who are leaving tend to be more honest since they have nothing to lose by sucking up to their higher ups, anonymous questionnaires also help achieve the same result. At the end of the day though, a constant appraisal of the working atmosphere within the company will help in bringing down attrition rates considerably.

Chuck Krugel’s Comments:  Although exit interviews can provide useful information, and can ease the exit transition, I’m not familiar with research or studies that indicate any sort of cost versus benefit analysis of exit interviews.

Therefore, prior to implementation, I caution employers to determine the costs of conducting exit interviews, and to either research or analyze what types of questions and format of the exit interview will work best for them.  Additionally, if an employer decides to conduct these interviews, implement them across the board, and not on specific employee groups.  This may help to avoid disparate treatment or disparate impact claims.

In other words, in theory, exit interviews can be useful, in practice, pay attention to the what, why, how, when, etc.  Why spend time and money if you can’t clarify the costs and benefits?

This post was contributed by Heather Johnson, who is an industry critic on the subject of how to become a nurse. She invites your feedback at heatherjohnson2323@gmail.com. Additionally, some of my own comments follow her article. Thanks Heather!

6 steps to keep Employee Complaints from Escalating

If an employee is unhappy then the best thing you can do is let him or her vent about the issue that’s bugging them. The worst thing that can happen is that the employee lets the situation fester. This is when a simple problem can escalate to one on a much larger scale. Something that could have been kept in-house could lead to the employee seeking counsel if the issue is that important. There’s no way to prejudge how important something is to an individual until it’s too late. Follow these six steps to keep the employee happy and, in turn, your business running smoothly:

1. Let the employee come forward on his or her own. The employee m ay be embarrassed or extremely agitated about the situation.Accordingly, they may realize that they need time to assess their feelings. When they’re ready to discuss the problem meet with them behind closed doors for their privacy.

2. Consider the facts. Let the employee explain the situation. Take notes during the meeting. Your experience will allow you to separate the facts from the emotions that are sure to come into play.
3. Have the employee put it in writing. By having the employee write down his complaint the possibility for misunderstandings down the road will be drastically limited. Encourage the employee to do this and let him or her know that this standard procedure and in his or her best interest as the situation unfolds.
4. Investigate thoroughly. After the initial complaint has been lodged, talk to the employees being named in the complaint. Get their sides of the story in writing. During this process, take notes and consider just the facts as you weed out the emotions that will be present.
5. Ask for witnesses.If there are any witnesses available that can corroborate the complaint or dismiss the allegations talk with them as soon as possible. Again, ask for a written statement and take your own notes during the interview process.
6. Make the judgment on the facts. Once you’ve collected all the statements and can properly weigh the facts it’s time to levy a judgment. Try to avoid involving attorneys, but if it comes to that point act swiftly. Consider the ramifications for your company. If possible, seek a non-biased mediator to assist in the matter. This can alleviate the complainant’s fears that he is going to get snowballed in the matter and will make everyone feel better about the process.

Chuck Krugel’s comments: Relative to employee venting, an employer has to pay attention to when, where , to whomand why and employee vents. For example, if the employee just doesn’t like the employer, then it’s probably best to do that away from customers and other employees.

If the employer learns of a situation, not directly from the involved employees, but from a witness or other party, the employer might still be legally obligated to investigate and take corrective action. By not doing so, the employer may be exposing themselves to legal liability and the loss of money.

Additionally, it’s not possible to always get a complaint in writing from the employee or a written statement from a witness. Sometimes, the employer has to document a witness’ statement or a verbal complaint from an employee. This is especially true where the employee is unable to write or the employee doesn’t speak or write in English well.

Finally, with respect to fact gathering and checking, an employer isn’t required to prove something as a matter of fact in order to take action. An employer just has to be reasonably sure that something occurred; the employer isn’t legally required to prove as a matter of fact or even “beyond a reasonable doubt” that something occurred.

In my Yahoo Groups HR Community email, I recently came across the following question and engaged with the solicitor in the following dialogue:

What is the process to be followed if there is a death at the work-
place (not factory)? The death could be of an employee, contract staff
or visitor.

Is there any legal liability on the employer if the death is due to
natural causes and not due to any negligence on part of the employer.

Regards,
Noel

My answer follows:

Interesting though somewhat morbid question :-) .

Generally, the company is not legally liable (except for any negligent or illegal acts). The company should not do anything which tries to hide anything or alters the body or anything on or attached to the body (except to check for identification, external wounds ( e.g., blood, a knife or piece of glass sticking out of the body), health condition identification bracelets/jewelry or other sorts of health related external indicators. Moreover, even if checking for the aforementioned, no one should move or alter the body or immediate surrounding area in any substantial way. Alteration of the immediate surrounding area may be minimally done to cordon off the area and to permit the free movement of any medical equipment, doctors, emergency and security personnel.

Relative to process, the company should have a written policy or a clearly understood unwritten procedure mandating that either the police, some other emergency or medical authority or the company’s own private security is immediately notified. Also, written reports from any and all witnesses and attending personnel should be taken and kept.

Disclaimer: The above isn’t intended as legal advice and creates no client/lawyer relationship. Additionally, my email is purely general advice which isn’t intended to address the needs of any specific employee or company. Also, my response is based on the general legal doctrine of common law legal systems, but may be applicable to civil law systems as well.

Noel responded with the following comment:

Thanks Charles for your inputs [sic].

I was also hoping to get some information on local legal requirements (which I guess you may not be able to help me with). Unfortunately in India we do not have good mobile emergency services and the best bet would be to move to a medical facility rather than wait for them to get to us. Also not all work places have medical room / professional services. In such situations a person is moved whether or not the person is confirmed dead by persons around him/her.

Your points are helpful to get started on having a policy to tackle such situations. Thanks once again.

My additional followup is:

Thanks Noel.

As I mentioned my comments were general. However, I believe that India’s legal system is common law based with aspects of civil law added. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

If I am correct, then in the context of Indian law, moving a person would only be advisable if the company is reasonably sure that the authorities will not find the company liable for any damage to the person or body, or liable for breaking any laws. Nevertheless, from a human resources management and legal perspective, it is probably not advisable to move or alter the body or surrounding area.

Chuck

Tony Ramos, President, Integra Security Alliance, and I wrote the following article.

Employee Screening and Risk Assessment

Recent headlines of workplace violence, violence by home service personnel, as well as convicted rapists working as private security officers or child care providers, has raised serious questions regarding employee screening programs.

• What is negligent hiring?
• Should all companies be expected to have a screening policy?
• Does every employee need to be screened?
• How much should a company expect to pay for screening?
• What can it cost a company should they chose not to have a screening program?
• Are all screening companies alike?

According to Charles Krugel, Human Resources Attorney & Counselor Labor & Employment Law on Behalf of Management www.charlesakrugel.com and Director, Legal & Compliance Services The Human Resource Store as well as a member of the Integra Security Alliance:

Negligent hiring and negligent retention lawsuits are increasing, and so are employer expense and liability as a result of these suits. Underlying the idea of negligent hiring and retention is an employer’s legal responsibility to provide employees, customers and the public a reasonably safe environment, and the liability imputed to employers when they fail to exercise reasonable care in providing such an environment. It’s when this failure occurs that as an employer, your business, could be held liable for negligent hiring or retention.

Consequently, from a cost containment and legal liability perspective, it’s increasingly crucial that businesses conduct criminal background checks, conduct such checks in a competent manner and take reasonable action as a result of these inquiries. This means that if an employer undertakes criminal background checking, in order to avoid legal liability, it should carefully choose who does the screening as well as what records are searched.

Although, Illinois doesn’t require many businesses to screen job candidates (most education and social service organizations are required to screen candidates), and the Illinois Human Rights Act mandates that an employer cannot use a candidate’s “arrest record” as the basis for denial of employment (narrow exceptions exist), the possible liability resulting from a business’ failure to screen can cripple that business. According to a 2001 report by the Society of Human Resources Management and American Background Information Services, Inc., the average settlement for negligent hiring lawsuits exceeds $1.6 million.

Obviously, much of the burden falls on employers, with the guidance of competent legal counsel and screening professionals, to determine what constitutes a competent background search. Generally, such a search is based upon the essential requirements of the position and the industry’s particular circumstances.

Usually, the courts don’t examine why screening is done. The courts look at why the essential duties of the job, and the particulars of the business’ industry, necessitate the need to screen out convicted criminals, and which types of crimes will prevent a candidate from being hired. Therefore, just knowing that a job candidate has been convicted of a crime may not be enough to insulate your business from liability. You will probably need to know the exact nature of the conviction and then connect it to the job.

In short, as a business, if you undertake criminal record checking, then choose a competent screener and screening method, check all candidates and employees, conduct the search in a good faith and reasonable manner, and use the results of those checks in a good faith and reasonable fashion. As with all human resources related matters, in order to minimize expense and legal exposure, focus on prevention and proaction–research your screener and work with them to best determine what you need and why you need it.

Vendor Selection – by Tony Ramos

Selecting the wrong screening vendor can be equal to or more devastating than hiring the wrong employee. The wrong vendor can provide you with nothing more than a false sense of security.

Select a vendor who has the knowledge, experience and can clearly explain your screening options and their limitations. Typical choices include statewide, county-court, national criminal databases and fingerprint searches. There are also choices of supplemental screening options which include driving record, credit reports, workers compensation, employment history, educational history and civil records as well. Your vendor can assist you in developing the right plan to match your needs.

Basic Program

• Vendor Selection: Select a vendor who can demonstrate a national hit rate of at least 10%. Hit rate is the effective way to determine the quality of the service. In short, for every 100 applicants screened, the vendor should be finding at least 10 with a criminal record. Don’t be surprised if a vendor is hesitant or actually refuses to provide this information. Many operate with only a 6% or
• Social Security Trace: This will help validate the number and provide up to ten-years of past residential history and names or aliases used.
• County-court Record Search: Counties to be searched should be selected based on the results of the trace and never from the job application. This will also provide you with the most accurate and current information available.
• National Criminal Database Search: For a more comprehensive program, include a national criminal database search. Important note, database findings must be verified by court records before acting upon them. Also, databases searches should only be used to supplement an actual court record search and not in place of.
• FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) Compliant: Ensure your vendor is fully FCRA compliant, this will provide you with additional protective immunity against some civil lawsuits.
• Cost: While there are many factors such as volume and types of screening options selected which determine the actual cost, one can expect to pay $20 to $35 per person.

Tony Ramos co-wrote this article based on over 20-years of experience developing, implementing and selling employee background screening to private/public corporations and governmental agencies nationwide. He also authored “The Guide to Background Checks” which he developed for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and is available for download from his web-site. For further information you can contact him directly.