The article was published in the “Finance” supplement of “Yediot Aharonot” on 3/27/13
What should be included in resumes sent to potential employers, what information should not be released, and why it is absolutely not worth reworking them? Questions and answers for job seekers
Little Dubrovitsky YNET
Published:
27.03.13, 11:00
In today’s tough job market, quite a few employers come across resumes of candidates in which various details of the candidate, such as his age or professional experience, have been “retouched.” For example, the Regional Labor Court recently ordered a former employer to pay compensation of approximately 40,000 shekels after he presented himself on his resume as a skilled service technician for fire detection systems, when in reality he had no such experience (he was only an installations technician).
With the assistance of Attorney Dafna Shmuelevich, a labor law expert from the Rubin Shmuelevich firm, and Attorney Gideon Koren, an expert in civil and commercial law, we will attempt to answer the question of what is prohibited and what is permitted when sending a resume.
Is a resume a legally binding document?
Absolutely. Attorney Gideon Koren explains that the rulings of the labor courts have recognized negotiations leading up to the conclusion of an employment contract as contractual negotiations. Therefore, both parties must conduct these negotiations in good faith and avoid misleading the other party.
What should a job candidate disclose to a potential employer in their resume?
Adv. Dafna Shmuelevich: “Even before a contract is concluded between the parties, they are under a duty of good faith and fairness towards each other, especially when it comes to a contract that is going to include increased and ongoing relationships of trust. The duty of good faith includes a duty of mutual disclosure: the employer explains the position and work, and the candidate explains himself and his qualifications. The candidate must disclose information relevant to the position for which he is applying, but which does not infringe upon his right to privacy. For example, it was ruled that pregnancy is not relevant to work. It can be relevant when there is a danger to the fetus or the mother, or when the employee is entitled to special relief due to the pregnancy (such as reduced working hours.)
Is a job candidate required to detail the circumstances of his termination from another employer?
Shmuelevich tells of a case in which the claim of a computer science doctor who claimed that he was unlawfully fired because he was hearing impaired was rejected. It was ruled that the real reason for the dismissal was his concealment of information about his work at a competing employer in the same position and his dismissal from there a short time later, which created distrust towards him.
On the other hand, not every detail must be disclosed. Shmuelevich: “It was ruled that an employee who worked for a short period at a certain company, resigned and applied for a job at the same company 10 years later, was not required to disclose that he had worked for the company in the past, especially in light of the difference between the positions in question.”
Can failure to disclose information or providing false information constitute grounds for dismissal?
Shmuelevich: “When the job candidate is required to disclose certain information, failure to disclose can be grounds for dismissal and even a claim for compensation for damages caused to the workplace due to the concealment. Providing false information by the candidate, even if there was no duty to disclose, can also be grounds for dismissal.”
Is it possible to sue an employee solely based on presenting incorrect information in a resume, or only after an interview or after being hired?
Koren: “There is no direct sanction for sending such resumes. Although the action itself may cause harm to the employer, even if he ultimately did not accept the employee for the job (such as wasting time on an interview, spending money on conducting tests at an institute, a polygraph test, etc.), the main result will be when the employer discovers that he was given misleading information after the employee has already started his work.”
“Two questions arise here: one, whether he can fire the employee; and the other, whether he must pay the employee severance pay. When it comes to active deception, the courts have clearly ruled that it constitutes grounds for dismissal. For example, in one case, the court upheld the dismissal of an employee who actively misled an employer by stating that he was 10 years younger than his actual age.
“Regarding passive deception, the situation in the case law is less unambiguous and not every omission of information will constitute grounds for dismissal. Active deception is when an incorrect detail is provided. For example, the candidate states that he has a degree but did not complete his studies, states an incorrect age, etc. Passive deception is when an important detail is not provided to the other party. For example, the candidate does not state a previous job from which he was fired.”
According to Koren, the courts consider it appropriate to balance the recognized duty of disclosure with the right to maintain the employee’s privacy, and therefore apply an objective test: Is the detail that the employee did not disclose material to the employer? In a case where the employee did not disclose that he had previously worked for the company and left, the court determined that this did not constitute deception.
With regard to the payment of severance pay, the tests are more difficult for the employer, and not in every case where the dismissal is justified will the employer be entitled to exemption from paying the compensation. Koren: “With regard to the denial of severance pay, the courts have determined that the circumstances of the case as a whole must be examined – the severity of the damage caused to the employer, the necessary deterrence towards other employees, the period of employment, the nature of the relationship between the parties over the years, the degree of trust and reliability that prevailed between the parties during the period of employment and the employee’s contribution to the enterprise, while taking into account the fact that dismissals sometimes constitute a sufficiently severe punishment in themselves.”
Can a job candidate provide false information regarding data that the employer is prohibited from asking about during the hiring process?
Shmuelevich: “The Equal Employment Opportunity Law states that a person may not be discriminated against in hiring for irrelevant reasons, including: gender, nationality, age, sexual orientation, parenthood, religion, and more. If the employer asked a question about a prohibited subject, the burden shifts to him to show that the reason he did not hire the candidate for the job is unrelated to this matter.
“However, the fact that the employee is not required to disclose these details and the employer is not allowed to ask about them does not permit the employee to provide false information on his own initiative. The District Court, for example, rejected a request for an injunction against the dismissal of an employee who indicated on his resume an age significantly lower than his actual age. It was determined that although the employee was not required to disclose his age, the false information that was revealed caused a crisis of trust that justified his dismissal.”
Is the potential employer obligated to check the details provided by the candidate?
Shmuelevich: “An employer is permitted, within certain limitations, arising from the privacy of the job candidate or employee, to review information provided to him by the candidate. Sometimes it is even right from the employer’s perspective to initiate such a review, although it is clear that there is no obligation to conduct it.”
“In one case, a job candidate was hired after presenting herself as a native English speaker and proficient in computer applications. It was soon discovered that she was not telling the truth and she was fired. The employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer was obligated to verify her qualifications and not rely solely on her words. The district court dismissed the lawsuit and ruled that the employer could rely on the candidate’s statements.
“In another case, which is still pending appeal, a teacher interviewed for a part-time job at a school and did not report that he was working full-time at another school. He was fired when this was discovered. The district court ruled that the teacher had a duty to announce his additional work, even if the employer could have discovered it himself, because it was information that was known to the employee.”
