Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

[labman]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

Your rehab period was 10 years, so you completed that.

In the job, are the vulnerable adults or people under the age of 18?

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

I feel that relevancy of the offence in relation to the nature of the post, coupled with the competency of the person who made the decision to sack the OP to make the decision they did, any re-offending and whether this is an appropriate decision to make are the main issues. The other issue is whether the offence makes the OP a real and significant risk to vulnerable persons.

IMHO, whoever made the decision to sack the OP needs to be called to account and their competency to make such a decision called into question, taking account of all relevant matters.

[labman]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

I feel that relevancy of the offence in relation to the nature of the post, coupled with the competency of the person who made the decision to sack the OP to make the decision they did, any re-offending and whether this is an appropriate decision to make are the main issues. The other issue is whether the offence makes the OP a real and significant risk to vulnerable persons.

IMHO, whoever made the decision to sack the OP needs to be called to account and their competency to make such a decision called into question, taking account of all relevant matters.

I don't think you can state that at the moment. There is more information needed. I've asked two relevant questions above. Also, as the OP had been employed less than one year, let alone two, they don't really need a reason to sack him, they'll find one anyway. However, they may have been right to do what they did - let's get the answers first.

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

I don't think you can state that at the moment. There is more information needed. I've asked two relevant questions above. Also, as the OP had been employed less than one year, let alone two, they don't really need a reason to sack him, they'll find one anyway. However, they may have been right to do what they did - let's get the answers first.

It seems clear from what is in Post #7 as to what has happened. If I may direct you to Post #14, this is one of the reasons I have said what I have.

[labman]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

Some offences are never spent though, and may prohibit the person from gaining employment in certain areas, or where they may come across certain people. That is why we need answers to the questions.

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

Some offences are never spent though, and may prohibit the person from gaining employment in certain areas, or where they may come across certain people. That is why we need answers to the questions.

The offences you speak of are Schedule 1 offences, which are the most serious. Handling Stolen Goods, the offence the OP has mentioned, is not a Schedule 1 offence.

[labman]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

I understand that, however the following is not likely to be helpful:

Exceptions to the act

Just as all offences carrying a sentence of over two and a half years in prison are never spent,some occupations require all convictions to be declared, even if they are spent under the terms ofthe act. This should be clear on application forms for such posts. People with convictions can still apply for jobs within these areas of work, although some areas will not be available to those with certain convictions. The list of exceptions broadly covers:


certain professions, eg, doctors, dentists, nurses, solicitors, pharmacists and teachers;
work in the health service where there is access to patients;
work in social services where there is ac
cess to people with disabilities, the young, the
elderly, the sick or other vulnerable adults;
work where there is access to people under the age of 18;
work involving the administration of justice, eg, court officials, the police, probation officers,
prison staff;
any occupations requiring a licence, certificate or registration from the gaming board;
any occupation concerned with the management of a private hospital or nursing home;
certain occupations where national security may be at risk

[smileyculture]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

This is where the reading of the act is down to interpretation. Yes, there were young adults under 18, but the offence was disclosed and lets clear one thing up, it is not a safeguarding issue offence, in any terms whatsoever. No offences before or after offence. This is a discrimination question. Someone who never knew me, looked at the CRB and made a decision to dismiss me, is that not discrimination based solely what is written on the CRB. I will add one further fact, the college were so happy with my work, they asked if I could work out of hours and weekends, as a contractor, and were refused. This totally contradicts the Authorities guidelines on employing contractors. Is it still not discrimination.

[charitynjw]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

Do you have a contract of service, or is it a contract for services?

[smileyculture]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

Contract of Service, but refused a contract of services after dismissal.

[charitynjw]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

This does not involve a 'protected characteristic' as defined by EqA 2010, & so I don't think discrimination applies.

[bluebottle]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

I understand that, however the following is not likely to be helpful:

Exceptions to the act

Just as all offences carrying a sentence of over two and a half years in prison are never spent,some occupations require all convictions to be declared, even if they are spent under the terms ofthe act. This should be clear on application forms for such posts. People with convictions can still apply for jobs within these areas of work, although some areas will not be available to those with certain convictions. The list of exceptions broadly covers:


certain professions, eg, doctors, dentists, nurses, solicitors, pharmacists and teachers;
work in the health service where there is access to patients;
work in social services where there is ac
cess to people with disabilities, the young, the
elderly, the sick or other vulnerable adults;
work where there is access to people under the age of 18;
work involving the administration of justice, eg, court officials, the police, probation officers,
prison staff;
any occupations requiring a licence, certificate or registration from the gaming board;
any occupation concerned with the management of a private hospital or nursing home;
certain occupations where national security may be at risk

Most of the employment sectors on the list have been in for some time. The vulnerable adults and children was added at a later date. Certain crimes involving criminal dishonesty can disqualify you from working in any job involved in financial services and from obtaining insurance, purchasing or selling shares and holding a bank account.

[ianalh]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

Working with people of that age it would almost certainly be an enhanced CRB check.

As Hughes LJ notes in CC Humberside & ors v Information Commissioner, [2009] EWCA Civ 1079 at 112, as of 2005 90% of CRB checks were enhanced. But of course employers and HR drones are all soft and cuddly and get gentler day on day and will have eased off since then...

[charitynjw]

Re: Convictions and Rehabilitation Act to prevent Discrimination

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013
/25.html&query=%22CRB+check%22+and+CRB+or+check&met hod=boolean

It would appear from the above cases that the court's views are, inter alia

A CRB check is an indicator, but the employer has a choice whether to hire or fire.

Whether ROA is compatible with HRA 8 will, for the most part, be decided via the seriousness of the crime, & where the line is drawn re balancing the individual's Human Rights and the interests of the safety of those members of the public who are likely to be affected.