To think if you lie on your CV, you are a CF to claim BHD?

[LeonardosYoungerModel]

I’ll keep it short: someone has claimed BHD (lack of training, high expectations etc) because they were not provided with training they felt they needed. All BHD claims relate to lack of support.

The training is not available as the hire was made based off the CV (which the claimee has now admitted was a fabrication). It is not a role that should require training bar on the job learning. The advert was explicit that experience in this area was non-negotiable.

Think head receptionist claiming they had experience of being a receptionist, then it turns out they don’t even know how to use outlook calendars and send meeting invites.

AIBU to think claiming BHD in these circumstances is massive CF territory?!

BHD?
Sounds a rubbish interviewing process though.

What's BHD?

How does an adult not know how to use outlook calendars. And even if you don’t, surely it’s just basic common sense?!

Apologies: BHD = bullying, harassment and discrimination.

Surely if they have now admitted their CV is a lie, then they will be fired. And no claim possible.

When you say the ‘hire was based off the cv’, was this person actually interviewed? Did they lie in their interview also?

Is that a common acronym? I’ve never heard of it.

Personally, I think the lying on the CV is irrelevant.

Sounds like the hiring manager didn't ask for any evidence of experience such as previous employer references or training certificates.

Sloppy hiring = sloppy hires

While I agree a 'BHD' claim is a bit of a stretch, I don't think anyone is glowing here.

Possibly a common acronym in toxic workplaces.

Bullying is wrong, but so is lying, which in this case undoubtedly causes unnecessary problems and extra work for colleagues. Definitely a CF!

It sounds like a poor recruitment process - but in my previous job,someone was sacked for not having the qualifications they claimed on their CV. If they're still in their first two years of employment, I'd be looking to remove them on grounds of having lied on their CV. I would think it's difficult to prove bullying or discrimination when they have admitted living. But I'd work with HR/legal to make sure it was watertight from my side, as they're clearly the type to fight it.

No interviewing. Internal move mandated by HR. The person doing the hiring was given a stack of CVs and told to pick someone. The staff whose CVs were given were all at risk of being let go due to restructuring. Manager had very little choice

Yes. Terribly shocking HR system. But it’s more the CFery that’s up for debate here - not the terrible HR protocols!

I agree with this. Sounds like there’s fault on both sides but the most straightforward solution would be to dismiss them for having lied (and admitted it) about their experience. But it needs to be done by the book as they sound potentially very litigious.

Your update changes everything.

How long have they been employed for?

And who told the manager to just ‘pick someone’? And why didn’t the manager actually conduct interviews with potential candidates?

Was the ‘at risk’ process being followed for redundancies?

In that situation of course people are going to exaggerate and lie on their CV. It’s that or end up without a job! It’s up to the recruitment process to ensure the candidate has the skills listed on the CV to do the job. In this case it’s a massive recruitment fuck up.

Yanbu.

I lied to get a job and now they are bullying me because I need training to learn how to do the things I lied and said I knew how to do.

Cry me a fucking river.

Surely lying on your CV if caught is a stackable offence?
I would get HR and legal to look into and then get rid of

Exactly!

I agree OP. If I got a job as a digger driver on a building site, having claimed on my CV I could drive a digger, I couldn’t really complain when I got to work and they didn’t give me digger driving training!

They’re not bullying her, they’ll be pulling her up for not doing simple tasks as expected, as she claimed she could and it’s now causing issues in the work force and likely someone else is picking up the slack. She should be sacked.

Honestly with the job market as it is now, I understand why people lie on their CV. Required experience for entry level pay a lot of the time. DH hires people, and sometimes I help out with the interview process - if you have solid recruitment processes and ask the right questions it’s easy enough to catch people out.

As for claiming bullying / harassment, that’s insane. Surly they won’t get anywhere with that though?

Did they lie on their CV when they were first recruited and the job they went into didn't need that skill so it never became an issue until this restructure.....or......during the restructure were they asked to submit a new CV to be considered for one of the available redeployment roles?

Both is obviously bad, but the second is far worse. With the first scenario it didn't matter as the thing was never needed and never questioned.

I'd never heard it either.

From my understanding of the OP, X has claimed on their CV that they can do Y, and are now saying they are being discriminated against as training wasn't given for Y, which they stated they could do already; and which was mandatory to be given the job in the first place.

Sounds like a mess all round. Did the employee confirm they had this experience when they moved into the new role, or was it just on their CV from when they joined? When did the fabrication come to light?

Did the employee raise the issue of lack of training/support as soon as they were moved into the new role? Or have you gone down the performance route with them and this is how they're reacting?

Obviously when taking someone through a performance management process, additional training/support is usually offered if someone is underperforming.

The fabrication muddies things though. Was this skill/experience relevant to the role they were originally hired for? You could certainly go down the disciplinary route here, but I doubt you'd get away with gross misconduct if the skill/experience they lied about wasn't relevant to the job they originally applied for.

I'm not sure how refusing to pay for training due to their misrepresentation constitutes bullying, harassment or discrimination. However if they end up failing their performance management process and you let them go for that, they may claim that the process was unfair if training/support wasn't offered.

To use your 'example' of Think head receptionist claiming they had experience of being a receptionist, then it turns out they don’t even know how to use outlook calendars and send meeting invites - that's perfectly reasonable if they've been in a role before where the Head Receptionist was never expected to use Outlook calendars or send meeting invitations, or they don't have experience of using a digital system when every place they've worked at used paper records.

Add in that there was an inadequate redundancy consultation and redeployment process and no training provided once it was clear there was a training need - something like a receptionist being criticised for not knowing how to issue payments on a particular system when nowhere else has ever expected somebody on reception to perform Finance functions, it's hardly surprising that they feel that they've been stitched up and bullied when they had no choice but to take the job or be made redundant.

If they were offered a job (contract) on the basis of a CV upon which they lied (ie the employer relied upon the veracity of the claims made in the CV) and the offer was made on the basis of the employer believing them… I’d suspect a could lawyer would argue that the contract of employment was null and void and that any employment claim made by the lying CF employee under it would, also, be invalid?

So yeah, if I was the employer I’d tell them they could go do one … in proper legalese, of course.