Quote Quoting screwcredit;70593


I'm not sure a human resource employee is bound to any statutory or common law duty, as its a private position held in the private sector, but even if they were charged with a stautory expectation, it would be along the lines of preventing them from discriminating. [URL="http://"

[/URL]
In one sentence you speak of recruiting agency and here you speak of a HR employee.

An employee would have a common law duty to act in the best interests of their employer. If they knowingly acted against those interests, they could be held accountable.

Depending upon how the recruiter is related to the final employer would need to be determined before that scenario could be considered. They too could be held to act in the best interests of the final employer if they are an agent of the final employer. If they are merely supplying prospects, they would be hard pressed to prove any subversive action intended. I don't imagine the final employer would be too thrilled to hear of this tyope of situation though. It would do a lot of damage to any relationship between the two companies.

You also do not state clearly what the $1000 was offered to accomplish. If it was intended to cause the employees to act against the best interest of the employer, it could be a problem. If it was merely given so the recruiter would "remember" the applicant, I don't see the harm.