G Brothers Construction Inc

I am writing today in response to a complaint filed against G Brothers Construction, Inc. related to a reportedmisused social security number of a six year old boy by a former employee of ours. The id assigned to thiscomplaint is [redacted].First and foremost, we understand the deeply troubling...

feelings that this type of situation must be causing theaffected family and we will cooperate in any way possible investigation to help resolve this matter.That being said, the facts represented in the complaint are not in line with our understanding of the two phonecalls between the boy’s mother and our controller who took both calls on behalf of G Brothers. In the first call theMother informed us that she received information that one of our Employees was using her son’s social securitynumber. We told her we would investigate this and she agreed to call back in few days to give us time toinvestigate the problem.In the follow up phone call, our controller told the mother that the employee was not in our active employee listindicating this employee has not worked for us in at least 90 days. Being in the construction business we havemany individuals work for us for short periods and then leave for other employment so moving former employeesto the inactive list happens on a regular basis.Upon hearing this information, the mother told our controller that she was told that the employee in question hadworked for us in the last 30 days and she said she would call us back with additional information as she was atwork and didn’t have the paperwork with her at that time. We have yet to hear back from her.In terms of G Brother’s policy regarding issues with our employees’ personal information, we always follow thelaw. With a staff of over 200 employees, we are asked to investigate personal information issues from time totime and we handle each case in the same manner. We do not ignore such claims as the complaint indicates.Our policy when we receive notice that there may be an issue with an employee’s records is to first check ourCompany files to insure we did not make any typographical errors that would cause the discrepancy and if thisdoes not resolve the issue we inform the affected employee that they need to resolve the matter themselves withthe Social Security Administration. The SSA does not give specific guidelines as to how long an employer shouldgive an employee to resolve such a matter but recommends at least 90 days on their website which is what we useas our Company guideline.In the case of the former employee that allegedly used this young boy’s social security number our recordsindicate this individual only worked for us for a brief period between August 29th, 2014 and October 28th, 2014and we were unaware of any irregularities with the information he provided when he was hired so noinvestigation was ever conducted during his brief employment to determine the validity of his personalinformation.We will be glad to speak to the boy’s mother if and when she calls us back and help in any way possible.Best Regards,[redacted]Operations ManagerG Brothers Construction, Inc.

I am writing today in response to a complaint filed against G Brothers Construction, Inc. related to a reportedmisused social security number of a six year old boy by a former employee of ours. The id assigned to thiscomplaint is [redacted].First and foremost, we understand the deeply...

troubling feelings that this type of situation must be causing theaffected family and we will cooperate in any way possible investigation to help resolve this matter.That being said, the facts represented in the complaint are not in line with our understanding of the two phonecalls between the boy’s mother and our controller who took both calls on behalf of G Brothers. In the first call theMother informed us that she received information that one of our Employees was using her son’s social securitynumber. We told her we would investigate this and she agreed to call back in few days to give us time toinvestigate the problem.In the follow up phone call, our controller told the mother that the employee was not in our active employee listindicating this employee has not worked for us in at least 90 days. Being in the construction business we havemany individuals work for us for short periods and then leave for other employment so moving former employeesto the inactive list happens on a regular basis.Upon hearing this information, the mother told our controller that she was told that the employee in question hadworked for us in the last 30 days and she said she would call us back with additional information as she was atwork and didn’t have the paperwork with her at that time. We have yet to hear back from her.In terms of G Brother’s policy regarding issues with our employees’ personal information, we always follow thelaw. With a staff of over 200 employees, we are asked to investigate personal information issues from time totime and we handle each case in the same manner. We do not ignore such claims as the complaint indicates.Our policy when we receive notice that there may be an issue with an employee’s records is to first check ourCompany files to insure we did not make any typographical errors that would cause the discrepancy and if thisdoes not resolve the issue we inform the affected employee that they need to resolve the matter themselves withthe Social Security Administration. The SSA does not give specific guidelines as to how long an employer shouldgive an employee to resolve such a matter but recommends at least 90 days on their website which is what we useas our Company guideline.In the case of the former employee that allegedly used this young boy’s social security number our recordsindicate this individual only worked for us for a brief period between August 29th, 2014 and October 28th, 2014and we were unaware of any irregularities with the information he provided when he was hired so noinvestigation was ever conducted during his brief employment to determine the validity of his personalinformation.We will be glad to speak to the boy’s mother if and when she calls us back and help in any way possible.Best Regards,[redacted]Operations ManagerG Brothers Construction, Inc.

Review: IT WAS REPORTED TO ME BY THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO THAT MY SON WHO IS 6 YEARS OLD WAS CLAIMING INCOME I CONTACT THE COMPANY IN REGARDS TO HIS PERSONAL INFORMATION BEING STOLEN AND IDENTITY THEY CONFIRMTHEY HAD THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ON FIE BUT HAVE NOT RETURNED MY CALL IN WHAT ACTION THEY TOOK FROM THIS ENPLOYEE WHO STOLLED MY SONS IDENTY AND WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIX IT. I CALLED AGAIN TODAY 7/6 AND THEY STATED THEY WILL CALL BACK AGAIN SEEMS THAT THEY DONT CARE ENPLOYEES USE FALSE INFORMATION AND ITS BEING REPORTED TO THEMDesired Settlement: WHAT STEPS HAVE THEY TAKEN TO FIX THIS PROBLEM SINCE IT IS BEING REPORTED WITHIN THE LAST 30 DAYS AS RECEIVING INCOME

Business

Response:

I am writing today in response to a complaint filed against G Brothers Construction, Inc. related to a reportedmisused social security number of a six year old boy by a former employee of ours. The id assigned to thiscomplaint is [redacted].First and foremost, we understand the deeply troubling feelings that this type of situation must be causing theaffected family and we will cooperate in any way possible investigation to help resolve this matter.That being said, the facts represented in the complaint are not in line with our understanding of the two phonecalls between the boy’s mother and our controller who took both calls on behalf of G Brothers. In the first call theMother informed us that she received information that one of our Employees was using her son’s social securitynumber. We told her we would investigate this and she agreed to call back in few days to give us time toinvestigate the problem.In the follow up phone call, our controller told the mother that the employee was not in our active employee listindicating this employee has not worked for us in at least 90 days. Being in the construction business we havemany individuals work for us for short periods and then leave for other employment so moving former employeesto the inactive list happens on a regular basis.Upon hearing this information, the mother told our controller that she was told that the employee in question hadworked for us in the last 30 days and she said she would call us back with additional information as she was atwork and didn’t have the paperwork with her at that time. We have yet to hear back from her.In terms of G Brother’s policy regarding issues with our employees’ personal information, we always follow thelaw. With a staff of over 200 employees, we are asked to investigate personal information issues from time totime and we handle each case in the same manner. We do not ignore such claims as the complaint indicates.Our policy when we receive notice that there may be an issue with an employee’s records is to first check ourCompany files to insure we did not make any typographical errors that would cause the discrepancy and if thisdoes not resolve the issue we inform the affected employee that they need to resolve the matter themselves withthe Social Security Administration. The SSA does not give specific guidelines as to how long an employer shouldgive an employee to resolve such a matter but recommends at least 90 days on their website which is what we useas our Company guideline.In the case of the former employee that allegedly used this young boy’s social security number our recordsindicate this individual only worked for us for a brief period between August 29th, 2014 and October 28th, 2014and we were unaware of any irregularities with the information he provided when he was hired so noinvestigation was ever conducted during his brief employment to determine the validity of his personalinformation.We will be glad to speak to the boy’s mother if and when she calls us back and help in any way possible.Best Regards,[redacted]Operations ManagerG Brothers Construction, Inc.