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
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
Better feedback, better growth?unlock peak performance with AI insights. See It In Action - Book Your Demo
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
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
The act shows serious lack of integrity. One must consider whether to retain such employees.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.