[Grammar] Which expression is correct?

[bluebell1980]

I'm not good at grammer, there are 2 questions. Thanks in advance.

1. could you kindly let me know which of the following is correct, or both are wrong and there are other expressions?

a) Mr. ABC was employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.
b) Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.

and why?

2. Is there any grammer problem with the following sentence or understandable?

Mr. ABC held the position of a finacial analyzer in our company throughout the period of employment.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm not good at grammar​.[STRIKE] there are 2[/STRIKE] I have two questions. [STRIKE]Thanks in advance.[/STRIKE] Unnecessary.

1. Could you kindly let me know which of the following is correct or if both are wrong and are there [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] other expressions I could use and why?

a) Mr. ABC was employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.
b) Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.

[STRIKE]and why?[/STRIKE]

2. [STRIKE]Is[/STRIKE] Are there any grammar problems with the following sentence or is it correct? [STRIKE]understandable?[/STRIKE]

Mr. ABC held the position of a financial analyzer in our company throughout the period of employment.

Welcome to the forum. :hi:

First, note the correct spelling of grammar and then look at my other corrections above in red.

1. Use "Mr ABC was employed by our company ...". The past perfect is unnecessary because you are not referring to another past time frame which comes after the employment of Mr ABC.

2. You don't need to use "in our company". If he was employed by you, then it goes without saying that the job was in your company.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would just like to add that the position is normally called "financial analyst".

 

[bluebell1980]

Thank you very much for correcting so many mistakes for me.
I really learned a lesson. Thank you.

 

[bluebell1980]

Thank you. I'll remember this.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The past perfect is unnecessary because you are not referring to another past time frame which comes after the employment of Mr ABC.

When he was redeployed, Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.

Can the red part be the past time frame?

 

[Rover_KE]

bluebell, your appreciation is welcome but there is no need to write a new post to say Thank you, and it is particularly unnecessary to quote our replies back to us. Simply click the Thank button on any posts you find helpful. It means that we don't have to open the thread again to read your new post and then find that it doesn't include any new information or an additional question. It saves everybody's time.
:-D

 

[Rover_KE]

When he was redeployed, Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.

Can the red part be the past time frame?

Yes.

 

[Raymott]

When he was redeployed, Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011.

I'd call that a strange sentence. Do you mean, "Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011, at which time he was redeployed"?
Otherwise he could have been redeployed any time after May 2011. "When he was redeployed in 2013, Mr. ABC had been employed by our company from May 2010 to May 2011." We could assume, say, that he was on extended leave without pay for a few years until they found a new job for him.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I'd call that a strange sentence.

Will it become normal if 'redeployed' is replaced with 'dismissed'?

 

[Raymott]

Will it become normal if 'redeployed' is replaced with 'dismissed'?

It would make sense. I might say, "When he was dismissed in May 2011, he had been employed by our company since May 2010." It's still an unnatural structure. What is the main fact? It seems that the writer isn't sure whether it's his dismissal, or the time he [had] worked for the company.
"He was dismissed in May 2011, after having worked for the company since May 2010". This emphasises the dismissal.
"He worked at the company between May 2010 and May 2011, when he was dismissed." This emphasise his time working there.
There are lots of more elaborate but less natural ways of putting it.