Problem with a client.....would appreciate other recruiters take on situation

Been at this for a long time and have been very fortunate in my relationships with my clients....have always been able to trust them to adhere to the "rules of the road" in hiring/utilizing an outside recruiter. Evidently....no longer true.

My client in this instance dismissed a candidate from a list of potentials I had ID'd for them. I'd agreed to submit candidates names early to "speed things up"....not my usual. Client said they'd already interviewed this person. OK...I moved on. I'd hunted down/researched and interviewed the candidate, presented the job, had him on board for interviewing, had his resume ready to submit to the client....but, trusting them, I dropped him and moved on.

Weeks later, the client, after zeroing in one of my candidates, telling me they "loved her", flying her in for an all day interview, said they wanted to hold on to her while they reorganized around the position as she was over the line in salary...gave the impression they were working something out.

A couple of weeks later received a call from them saying they had decided to hire someone else. End of story..... HOWEVER, I was curious to see who they had hired so watched their site/LinkedIn etc. and discovered they had hired....YES...that one....the one they told me to DROP....because they had already interviewed him.

Turns out...they had interviewed him prior to my suggesting him for this position....over a year ago.....for another position.

Am I wrong to feel cheated in this case? I'd really like to hear from another recruiter and get another perspective. I'm not one to walk away and let a client just dismiss me after I've found them a candidate and they hired them.

Any input would be appreciated.....THANKS!

Penny Alexander

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amber on September 1, 2011 at 2:28pm

Do you have anything in writing with this client about the length of time for candidate "ownership"? What was the reason for them to get the candidate names early if they weren't used to let you know whether they already had that person on their own and therefore prevent you from wasting your time? I also have the situation happen where I send a client a name to clear, they say they do have them from within the agreed timeframe and then they are free to pull that person's info back up and go from there. For the most part, I feel pretty good about the integrity of my clients, and if they decided to go see what this persons background was because I sent them the name and decide to hire them then as long as it's in accordance I wouldn't feel badly. I have had clients say "we have that person, but it's past our agreed timeframe", and then placed those candidates. So I guess a lot hinges on what agreement you had with this client. (Although, the overall scenario sucks since you didn't get a placement.)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Penelope Alexander on September 1, 2011 at 3:14pm

Thanks for your input Amber. My agreements don't contain anything about ownership of candidates. I work with smaller companies with lots of turnover. If I go in on a search.....I'll ask who they have already talked to. This guy wasn't mentioned until I tried to present him for my search. I thought it was pretty much standard that if a candidate had not been in touch with a company for over a year.....and had never applied for the current position, they were available to me.

I'm trying to decide whether or not to pursue it with the management.

Penny

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sandra McCartt on September 1, 2011 at 3:14pm

I think you are toast on this one. Since you only submitted a name and they told you they had already interviewed him they did not accept your referral and in fact had already interviewed the candidate. You may have been the catalyst that caused them to go back and look at him again but..and this is a big deal. If you had talked with him about the company when you contacted him and he had told you he had already interviewed there you probably would not have moved forward with him or you would have been on notice that he had already been in for interview.

The only way this might have worked is if you had clarified with them prior to submitting names that if you came up with a candidate they might have seen previously but for you bringing him to their attention they would not have considered him. The old "but for" rule. Howsomever, the "but for" is more difficult to work with in the current land of the ATS and the paranoia of internal recruiters who will be eaten alive by their supervisor if they accept a referral on a candidate who is in the database or has been interviewed.

Since they told you from the name that they had him before you sumitted anything i would write this one off unless you have a very strong relationship with a hiring manager or a senior person in the HR and recruiting group who might be willing to consider that they would not have contacted the candidate without you mentioning him. Chances of success oh, about one in ten thousand. Try it you have nothing to lose.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Penelope Alexander on September 1, 2011 at 3:34pm

Hi Sandra -

Appreciate your input. This situation was in a smaller city.....where the client is pretty much aware of everyone in the marketing field. The candidate in question had approached them about another position a year earlier. They did not hire him at that time as he wasn't a fit for that job.

No one mentioned him to me when I launched my search (different position). I came across him on my own...he seemed like a fit. I had agreed with the HR person that I'd run names by her for the purpose of weeding out people they may have looked at for the position already. They had not looked at him for the position but passed on him when I included him on a list of potentials so I did not forward the resume that I had in hand ready to present.

It's a lost cause probably......however, I will never again go into a small market and be told by my client everyone there is "known"....because.....so what! If they haven't zeroed in on them for the position themselves.....haven't thought of them....and I do...and it's a fit...he/she should be my candidate. My job is to fill the position.....not play "gotcha"...... (Guess I'm just blowing off steam....but I have never allowed clients to simply push me out of the way....take the candidate and blow off the fee....hard to start!)

Thanks again....

Penny Alexander

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Spagnola on September 1, 2011 at 3:38pm

Nothing to lose, but what to gain? I agree w/. Ms. McCartt - "but for' becomes harder and harder to win, and where is the old fax stamp when you need it? Many moons ago it was the time stamp on the fax sheet w/. resume that won these ownership questions. Today- you have to look at big(whole) picture and ask is this a bone really worth picking a fight over? Sure it stings, but will moving on maintain a working relationship that might be more beneficial to you in the long run? Assuming you work out another arrangement in protecting yourself on future candidate submits.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa rokusek on September 1, 2011 at 3:45pm

Sometimes the candidate can give you an assist on this by supporting you on the causal factor of why he or she is back in the mix.

The "but for" rule is great shorthand for us, however most clients don't have a clue what it means. They will often respond better to the phrase "efficient procuring cause" (the actual legal schmeagal terminology" especially when a candidiate supports your impact by having signed a representation agreement. It is a fine line to walk but I have gotten fees when I thought I wouldn't.

Also, I have changed my agreements to reflect that I am owed a fee if I was the efficient procuring cause in a hire including but not limited to resume submittals. It helps. You could also use substantial cause too.

Here is a snippet:

Should XXX be the efficient procuring cause of any candidate hired by the Company, including but not limited to the traditional resume submittal, recruiting fees shall be applied.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Spagnola on September 1, 2011 at 3:49pm

nice snippet

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa rokusek on September 1, 2011 at 3:54pm

My brother, we work FAR TOO HARD to lose out on any fees within our grasp.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Penelope Alexander on September 1, 2011 at 4:03pm

Lisa -

Guess that's what I came to Recruiting Blogs for.....your "snippet" will definitely be added to my agreements from now on. I'm also going back to the client and put this argument forward.

As you said....we work too damn hard to walk away when we've actually been the active ingredient in getting a position filled...

Thanks guys! This is great. I feel less like roadkill....back to being my "assertive" self!

Penny

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on September 1, 2011 at 4:03pm

For the most part - recruiting is a bunch of BS - and every once in a while someone owes you a giant check. Sorry about this one Penelope......

This is why I don't do much research on who my clients hire when it doesn't happen through me. I'd rather not know.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Penelope Alexander on September 1, 2011 at 4:21pm

Nooooooo! Recruting is an ART. It's NOT a process of throwing candidates at the wall and hoping they stick. Not for me. Guess that's why I'm so pissed off by this client. They treated me like a con artist hoping for a score....and are now behaving like they fended off a robbery!

I think letting them get away with it without being held accountable for their dishonesty, secrecy and smug trickery is a mistake and would hurt me/us as a serious business people whose agreements.....both written and tacit need to be respected.

I'll never see the fee but they are going to see clearly how/why they are cheating me before I'm finished.

Cheers!

Penny

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Penelope Alexander on September 1, 2011 at 4:28pm

Hi Bill -

Fact is my candidate was NEVER in the running for the position I was recruiting for.....the company had interviewed him a year ago for another position. They didn't have him in the running for this at all.....

Just to fill in a little more of the story. I had to go the the candidate (after recruiting him for the position....getting his resume in hand for presentation) and tell him they weren't interested. THEN when

they were supposedly considering my other candidate (who's salary was too high).....this candidate (the one they dropped....who had been told about the position by me, recruited by me...then dropped.....approached someone in the company. At that point, the company said....Oh Yes! We are interested! and subsequently hired him.....

Anyway.....guess I'll get over it, but I will get my belief I've been cheated...and why....in front of their management.

Cheers!

Penny

Bill Schultz said:

That Sucks, Penny. My take is if your client was on the up and up, he would tell you that guy was in the running from the git go. Doesn't sound like he intended to screw you when he eliminated the guy but probably went back and reviewed his background. Decided to give him a call. Even so, he should've let you know. So, he's only half a slime bag.

Be good to know if the guy was originally represented by a recruiter. Either way, he's lost trust with you. And the candidate should've told you he's been there before.