Is this usual? Job offer subject to.....

aliasojo

Quick query please.....is it usual for someone to be offered a job (contract given for signing) before any checks have actually been done?

By checks I mean, references, disclosure checks, health checks etc etc?

If someone has been employed and for whatever reason it's found out that there is an issue in whatever checks the new employer has done, what happens then? Does the person just get 'let go'?

Just to clarify, please don't make all sorts of assumptions as to why I'm asking, there isn't an issue, I was just curious as to how this usually works and what the situation would be if anything was 'wrong'.

joolsybools

Companies normally make a provisional offer which is subject to references etc then it becomes a firm offer once everything has come back ok

scooby088

I would ring the employer first before even thinking of starting or signing a contract. But you could be let go if you start and then get unsatisfactory results of checks and references. I am not saying you would be let go just a possibility, some companies say subject to checks and start after they have got them all back.

anamenottaken

If, because there was an urgent need for someone to start work before all references were received, I used to use an agency to provide them as an agency temp until the references were received. That was to avoid any problem with dismissal/notice if the references weren't satisfactory.

I would say it is not usual to send a contract for signature before the checks have been concluded. Aliasojo, are you referring to a contract which has been signed by the employer, requires an employee signature and has a start date included?

BonandDom

I have just been offered a position subject to references, medical and CRB checks and not due to start till these are all clear

persa

I started my current job before all the checks came back.

If I had failed them, I would have been dismissed. But a third party was checking out my whereabouts etc for the past - 5? 10? - years and my qualifications. I knew it would all come back ok eventually as I hadn't lied anywhere. To me, this was just a formality.

DCFC79

No its not normal for an employee to start before checks are done, whether you are let go if the checks come back as no good then its up to the employer to decide whether you keep you on or let you go.

mountainofdebt

Aliasjo


Don't worry it's totally normal.....in fact I've just been offered a job on that basis myself.

The only word of caution I would give you is don't hand in your notice until the new employer has confirmed your appointment - I certainly don't intend to

cannyscot_2

I recently got a job in a lare co - they sent the contract and i had to acccept and once I had accepted the checks started . They took 2 weeks and tht was them being pushed through. Job starting was subject to checks being completed and offer woould be withdrawn if checks unsatisfactory.

keyser666

DCFC79 wrote: »

No its not normal for an employee to start before checks are done, whether you are let go if the checks come back as no good then its up to the employer to decide whether you keep you on or let you go.

I beg to differ, a lot of my roles have allowed me to start on the proviso of DBS clearance and references. Granted you might have limited access to systems in the interim until these are clear but it is pretty standard, in the contract world anyway

paulineb_2

Always had all the checks done before I started any job apart from when I started one job and my disclosure was held up but they had seen my previous one

Never started a job without references being checked.