Dismissal over a conviction (15yrs spent) disclosed at interview?

[Moobee]

We are residents in Scotland (might be significant with differences in law)

 

My hubby was elated when, after a period of unemployment he got a maintenance job in a school with a company that has a 30 year contract for the local council (in current economy this presented a good chance of permanency). We are both approved foster carers and he has a conviction which has been disclosed and was considered extremely low risk considering he has no other convictions and it was so long ago.

 

The conviction is fraudulent use of a tax disc - he was young and naive and when needing to get to an appointment took the disk from another taxed vehicle that had a mechanical problem he owned and put it on his other vehicle. He was fined £150 in 1994.

 

In order to become foster carers this has already been scrutenised and he had an enhanced disclosure on which this conviction appeared. He presented a current enhanced disclosure (for fostering) detailing the offence to his employer at interview and again when he had to send documents for them to do their own disclosure.

 

He was offered employed on a 3 month probabtionary basis starting 22nd June. We recieved his disclosure in the post on 2nd July and we can only assume that his employer recieved their copy on the same day.

 

Today (17th July) he was taken into his managers office and told he was being dismissed due to dishonesty on the basis of the conviction on his disclosure and he has no right of appeal. He has been offered one weeks notice but they dont want him to work his notice.

 

He has had nothing in writing, but more to the point there were no other incidents to give them cause to dismiss him, he fulfilled his contractual obligations with regard to time and duties.

 

Can they do this when they employed him knowing about his offence? He is quite offended that anyone would say he was dishonest given the fact that he disclosed everything and is worried about future emploment prospects is this discrimination?

 

Any advice would be gratefully recieved as you can imagine I am the main fostercarer and we rely on my husbands income to pay bills. This particular job is worth fighting for and we want to know if there is any action we could or should take.

[kurvaface]

Hi there Moobee and welcome for your first post:)

 

I am no expert on the law, particularly in Scotland, however I am an employer and might be able to give you some ideas on how to approach this problem from that perspective.

 

What exactly was disclosed to the employer at interview / application for the job? Was it identical to the information the employer will have received on or around July 2nd?

[Moobee]

Yes. Exactly the same information appears on both disclosures.

[kurvaface]

Ok.

 

Has this been discussed with the employer today? What was their explanation?

[WelshMam2009]

I imagine the post was subject to an enhanced CRB check if your husband was primarily based in a school environment and would have regular contact with children.

 

However, this really does seem to be taking it to the extreme.

 

(Oddly enough, I experienced something similar with an employee of mine when we introduced checks years ago. He had been convicted of handling stolen goods in the sixties when he was 17 years old. Does that make him a danger to society 40 years on? I think not!! )

 

I could be wrong, but I honestly did not believe that you could summarily dismiss an employee, even in probabtionary period, without a hearing. It is also worrying that nothing has been received in writing.

 

If your husband is not in a trade union then I would get myself down to the Citizen's Advice Bureau asap.

 

Best of luck.

[Moobee]

Their explaination was that they have a list of categories for people they should not employ from the council regarding the disclosure details.

 

One of the categories was "dishonest" and fraudelent use of a tax disc falls into that category.

[kurvaface]

I think the get out clause here for the employer is "Probationary Period".

 

How do employment tribunals work in this situation?

 

As for the enhanced CRB...I am sure that would have been done for foster caring.

 

edit

 

Their explaination was that they have a list of categories for people they should not employ from the council regarding the disclosure details.

 

One of the categories was "dishonest" and fraudelent use of a tax disc falls into that category.

 

Why employ in the first place then?

[WelshMam2009]

Their explaination was that they have a list of categories for people they should not employ from the council regarding the disclosure details.

 

One of the categories was "dishonest" and fraudelent use of a tax disc falls into that category.

 

 

He's hardly working in the Council's accounting section signing cheques though is he Moobee?

 

You have to have very specific reasons for undertaking a CRB check....there is a long list to chose from. In this case, I naturally suspect it is to avoid child abuse and there are no convictions of this nature.

 

It may actually be worth asking the employer which category code he was assessed under.

 

It is also worth mentioning that the couple have already been vetted as foster carers which carries it's own CRB check (code 65 Eligible Posts)

[kurvaface]

I think Welshmam is correct re CAB.

 

You need to establish what has changed between the time your husband was approved for the position and today, because the conviction seems to be being used as an excuse to get rid.

 

Someone who knows the score should let you know what the regulations are re "probationary" period because I think that is the critical issue.

[LilyLou]

I would check out the rehabilitation of offenders act out as this may or may not constitute discrimination, working in a school primarily relates to specific offences

[kurvaface]

I would check out the rehabilitation of offenders act out as this may or may not constitute discrimination, working in a school primarily relates to specific offences

 

http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/resources/nacro-2007021302.pdf

[kurvaface]

Under the

provisions of the Act, a spent

conviction shall not be proper

grounds for not employing –

or for sacking – someone.

 

This seems to be a wee bit relevant:-)

[WelshMam2009]

 

This seems to be a wee bit relevant:-)

 

Too right it does Kurvaface!!

[jackieandwayne]

When this enhanced CRB thing came into play, I was working for the LA, so was my partner. He had to have one done because although he was only a driver for the library and schools service, he had to do the mobile library and might come into contact with vulnerable people and children.

 

He was 40 then. When he was about 17 he stupidly (like you do) used a piece of cornflake packet for a tax disc and got caught. This came up on the enhanced CRB and they actually tried to sack him! He had to explain himself to HR, who then ruled that it was all a nonsense. But nevertheless he had to go through the mill over something he did as a juvenile!

 

Seems like if you do something stupid as a child you WILL be punished for it for the rest of your life. So, be guided by those in the know on here and fight back - what a nightmare for you - I really hope you get this sorted.