Woman denied job due to labor dispute arbitration record four years ago - Why is asserting legal rights becoming a 'stain' for job seekers?

When facing illegal termination, unpaid wages or other labor rights violations in the workplace, applying for labor dispute arbitration to protect one’s legitimate interests can be very challenging for workers. Now, this reasonable action of asserting legal rights is turning into a “stain” on job seekers' records, continuously causing new problems.

According to the experiences shared:

• A woman named Xiaoyu was notified her employment eligibility was cancelled after the company’s background check revealed she had a labor dispute litigation record. This was related to an unpaid wages dispute Xiaoyu and her colleagues brought against their former boss. In May 2024, the court ruled the boss must pay the owed wages to Xiaoyu within a set time limit. She won the case but then lost a new job opportunity because of it.

• Another woman named Zhang Yumei had her job offer rescinded after completing the medical exam. The reason given was also that a background check found litigation records. Zhang later obtained the background report and discovered the so-called litigation was actually a debt collection dispute from seven or eight years ago where she was the plaintiff suing to get her money back after the debtor refused to repay for a long time. The HR said regardless of whether Zhang was plaintiff or defendant, as long as there is any litigation record, they will not hire.

“I was shocked. Never imagined a self-help action I took many years ago to assert my rights would impact my job search now. It feels like an inescapable situation,” Zhang said, not understanding the company’s logic.

Directly refusing to hire candidates with labor dispute arbitration records like this is actually illegal discrimination. It violates job seekers' equal employment rights. If companies use the existence of arbitration or litigation records as a reason to deny employment, it could be deemed as exclusion of workers' equal job-seeking rights.

However, few companies openly state this in job postings, likely fearing public backlash. They can reject one or two candidates, but don’t dare to blatantly discriminate against a whole group of workers. The stated “disdain” is just for show; the real evidence is in the background checks.

Labor dispute arbitration records becoming a job search “stain” is like a smokescreen - an unspoken rule tacitly approved by employers. The intent is to penalize employees who’ve had disputes with companies, making it hard for them to find new jobs. This is actually a coercive tactic used by companies. It’s very difficult for job seekers to defend their rights in this area, as there is no strict oversight from relevant authorities. It’s a glaringly obvious loophole being exploited.

Companies can make up any excuse, saying a candidate “failed the background check”, then rescind an offer in minutes, rejecting the person in minutes. In an employer’s market, companies have absolute power over hiring. But if they aren’t hiding anything, why not openly state this requirement in the job ad? It still comes down to fearing public opinion. They can deny one or two candidates, but absolutely don’t dare to openly discriminate against a whole group of workers.

The proliferation of unfair hiring practices reflects the harsh realities of today’s job market for workers. To truly eliminate this “stain” on job seekers, labor dispute arbitration records themselves shouldn’t be treated as a negative. They definitely shouldn’t become an excuse for companies to unlawfully terminate or deny employment. Asserting one’s legal rights in the workplace shouldn’t lead to not being hired. This is the shame of our society. I hope in the future any company or individual who leaks a candidate’s legal records without authorization faces heavy penalties and is required to pay compensation to the worker. We can’t just rely on the confidentiality of arbitration alone. Confidentiality is good, but has little real deterrent effect.

If a company wants to check if a candidate has arbitration records, it’s not that hard. They can inquire with the candidate’s previous employers to find out. If a company’s HR has certain connections and resources, or outsources to those well-networked background check agencies, it becomes even easier. Once a worker has had an arbitration dispute with their former employer, that employer will certainly not say anything positive.

We need to reframe how labor relations are perceived. The starting point of the employment relationship has gradually been skewed by so-called “probation periods”. The labor relationship is established from the actual first day of work, not the signing date of the employment contract. I emphasize this point because many people still mistakenly believe employees can be fired at will during probation. How much more problematic is it if an entire “trial employment period” is introduced!

I stress this because workers' rights protections vary significantly at different stages. Maintaining one’s rights is already difficult enough. If there is repeated back-and-forth, it becomes even harder! For example, if you receive an offer but before your first day, while happily preparing to start the new job (moving, renting a place, even relocating to a new city), are suddenly told your employment is cancelled. At this stage, the dispute can only be resolved through ordinary civil procedures by directly filing a lawsuit in court. Because you haven’t actually started working yet, no employment relationship has been established!

Once you actually begin working, then a labor relationship is formed. Any subsequent disputes between you and the employer fall under the scope of labor disputes. To protect their rights, workers must first apply for labor dispute arbitration. Therefore, terminating an employee with an arbitration record during “trial employment” definitely constitutes unlawful termination! Workers can then seek compensation for unlawful termination or demand continued fulfillment of the labor contract. The specific choice depends on the worker’s actual situation.

In closing, all background check related questions can be referred to me. But I only accept paid consultations, not idle chats. Contact information is below. Thank you for your attention!