Christopher Davies, professional support lawyer, Halliwells

The episode

The final tasks saw the four finalists split into two teams. Helene and Alex picked Raef, Kevin and Jenny M. to assist from previously fired candidates. Lee and Claire’s choice was Simon, Jenny C and Michael.

The task itself was to design a new men’s fragrance and to launch an advertising campaign. Again team-work or lack of it played its part in the task. As the day progressed Helene looked increasingly threatening towards the other members of the team and at one stage dismissed them all so that she could have words with her co-leader Alex. He has mentioned a couple of times that he is only 24. However he demonstrated maturity by staying calm and asking why Helen was getting so defensive.

Over at the other team Lee was showing signs that nerves were getting to him. He was having difficulty getting his lines right for the launch speech. However there was no falling out and there was evidence of mutual respect as Claire and Lee planned the launch show.

Both launches were successful but in the boardroom Sir Alan pointed out that Helene and Alex had made the fatal business mistake of not costing out the products they were marketing. This meant that their product was not practicable to sell while Lee and Claire’s product could go straight onto the market.

True tension followed as Sir Alan had to make a choice between Lee and Claire. Sir Alan admitted it was "very difficult to choose between them". Claire had been very competent in all the tasks and had seemed to take on board initial criticism that she was a little too loud at times. However, Lee had also demonstrated sales ability and management ability. He had managed three tasks all of which he had won. That at the end of the day was sufficient to convince Sir Alan.

The decision

Well done Lee McQueen. The winner of the Apprentice 2008.

Would he have got this job if there was no show called the “Apprentice”? The answer has got to be no. Last week we saw Lee being faced with an interview in which he was found to have been lying. The interviewer asked him to confirm that he had been at University for two years. His guilty reply was to the “best of my knowledge”. Only when he was told that the University had sent confirmation that he had only stayed four months did he come clean. This has got to call into question the integrity of any candidate.

Why did he get the job in the Apprentice? In most recruitment situations a post is advertised and the candidates apply. A shortlist is drawn up taking into account the information on the CV or application form and those that most closely match the person specification for the job are called for interview. If at the interview the candidate is found to be lying then it is an easy decision to choose another candidate in preference.

In contrast the candidates on the Apprentice take part in a 12-week show during which they are being continually tested. The closest comparison in terms of recruitment in the real world would be where 16 new employees are put on a three-month “probationary contract”. The employer then decides which one to keep at the end.

In the normal recruitment process the information contained in the CV or the application is central to the whole process. The Apprentice way of recruitment means that performance and in the ‘probationary’ period (meaning the show) is the main focus and the information in the application form or CV is secondary.

That is not to say that once an employee is in the job they cannot be dismissed for CV lies. Many employers would dismiss an existing employee if it was found that they had lied on their CV. If the employee was dismissed during the first year of employment they would be unlikely to have any claim against the employer. However whether the employer would choose to do so if the employee was highly successful is a different matter. This is what has saved Lee in the Apprentice.

If the employee has longer service then the importance of the matters upon which the employee has lied will have to be taken into consideration. If the employee represented that he had key qualifications for a job and then it is found that they do not have it will give grounds for a fair dismissal. On the other hand if the employee has been in the company for a long time without any work problems and it is found that some minor details on the application form were wrong then it would be risky to dismiss as the employee may be able to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal.

JOIN US IN THE FORUM

Join Christopher in the forum.
Do you have a suggestion, want to connect with this contributor or take part in this debate?
Or, if you prefer, use the comment box below...