Perm advertisements mismatch

U

USAGC2006

Registered Users (C)
My company is planning on filing labor in PERM.They have completed all the recruitment steps and ready to file. Actual job title was .NET Architect on the prevailing wage and job order. But on the news paper ad and its website it was advertised as "ARCHITECT". Atually, my employer sent ad info to the news paper correctly, it looks like paper company messed it up and my employer also has the correct copy of email sent to the news paper...Will there be any issue if we proceed?

And also, news paper ad and their website has all the skills that are on on Prevailing wage and job order except one i.e. .NET. Will there be any issue if one skill is missing in news paper ad compared to PWD and Job order?

Please advice. Is it better to re-advertise and proceed with current ads?. Or is the title "Architect" not acceptable if the ad is placed in IT jobs section? Or Should it be .NET Architect?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you saying that even in the content it did not mention the .Net requirement? You can still proceed and pray that you do not get audited. If you do...and the chances are slim, it could get denied.
 
Yes, It is missing .NET in the job title and skills. But it has all other skills like "SOA Architecture, XML Web Services, VB... etc"

In case of an audit,Can you provide the explanation like, ad was given with a wide scope and would have taken any candidate with the required skiils even without .NET? It looks like no body has responded.

Please advice.
 
The probablity of getting audited is fairly low. So I gues you would be okay. But you must realize that if you get audited, you will have to be ready with the explanation that .Net was just a small portion of the overall skillset and your company was open to the non-.Net candidates as well. THat could show that you were not restrictive in your recruiting. So I would say go ahead with the application and also be prepared with the replies in case you get audited. Good Luck!
 
I completely agree with CREATIVE. If you can reasonably explain that the ommision was made "in good faith" and that it had no impact on the responses and the way they were treated, then you should probably be OK. Yet, we have to remember we're dealing with very narrow brains :-) Good-Luck !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top