On what grounds can an Employer ask for a CRB check on an Employee

Raksha

I work with tutors for young people for creative workshops - a conviction or caution need not be a barr to being one of our tutors - depending on the circumstances. If at the interview stage, you mention your status (disclose it) it looks even better. Several of our tutors do have minor offences (hard to find a Graffiti Tutor who doesn't have a 'criminal damage' record) but the majority grow up and realise their stupidity and are happy to pass on the 'legal graff only' message to young people all across the country.

SarEl

MrsManda wrote: »

There are some occassions where a CRB check is portable but obviously there are risks involved to the employer if they do this. CRB Portability

There is a list of posts which are eligible for CRB checks on the home office website HERE

This isn't strictly accurate. Quote from the site referenced "The CRB no longer facilitates portability, organisations that choose to accept a previously issued CRB check do so at their own risk." That means that CRB checks are not portable, but an employer may choose to take the risk for reasons of their own. They are then subject to the same risks that a relevant employer who doesn't do any CRB checks is in - the most obvious of which would be that having failed in their statutory duty they would be guilty of negligence and there would be no defence.

PasturesNew

I had a CRB check done when I worked as an online tutor for a College 20 miles away. The tutoring was for adult learners. Never even got to meet the students as it was all online ... never mind any kids/their families/whatever. But a CRB was standard at the College.

DVardysShadow

_shel wrote: »

[In reply to:]

To all the CRB apologists and the ones who constantly justify them with the old chestnut 'A criminal record is not necessariliy a bar to employment', just read Glittermonkeys post at #20. Then factor in all the other employers who operate the same policy.

YAWN..........

Are you still living it up on the dole then and only applying to jobs where you can refuse to have CRB done.

You have not really addressed the point about Glittermonkey's post. This suggests that anything other than the cleanest record is going to leave someone with little choice but to live on the dole. ROHA was brought in to allow people to move on from a mistake they once made - or that the authorities made in their case.

Punishment as an objective of justice is largely pointless [oh I hear people cry, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime - so it serves them right they are on the dole etc]. Punishing people by making them sit at home on the dole does not make them better people. It does not make them useful in society, it just costs the rest of us money to keep them there, when they could earn their own keep.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You have not really addressed the point about Glittermonkey's post. This suggests that anything other than the cleanest record is going to leave someone with little choice but to live on the dole. ROHA was brought in to allow people to move on from a mistake they once made - or that the authorities made in their case.

Punishment as an objective of justice is largely pointless [oh I hear people cry, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime - so it serves them right they are on the dole etc]. Punishing people by making them sit at home on the dole does not make them better people. It does not make them useful in society, it just costs the rest of us money to keep them there, when they could earn their own keep.

I broadly agree. I cannot oppose CRB checks per se because I believe that there are very real needs to protect the vulnerable from predators. But I do believe that there is a strong argument for massive restructuring of the system. Many of the roles and employments for which CRB's have become "required reading" do not, it seems to me, stand up to much scrutiny. And the inclusion of spent offences which are not relevant to the position are similarly questionable. None of this suggests that people should "get off easy" or that criminal activity should not be dealt with appropriately under the law. But the purpose of the "punishment" is supposed to be to rehabilitate, and that principle is enshrined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (which appears to be pretty pointless these days, since employers get around it so much). If people cannot change, if they cannot see the error of their ways, and become useful members of society, then we have a poor excuse for a society. People commit crimes for all sorts of reasons - not always because they are bad. Poor judgement, desperation, stupidity... If they are then to have that held against them for the rest of ther lives - and I agree that some employers certainly do this - then we are not simply saying that they should spend the rest of their lives on the dole. We are actually encouraging them to see crime as a viable way of surviving. If you are excluded already, then why bother trying to be included?

Many people with some form of criminal activity in their past have gone on to become useful and productive members of society. Some have turned their convictions into "lessons" for others not to go their way. Others have beavered away quietly to put it behind them for many years. I believe that it would be much better to seriously review the law on CRB's and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to make them more consistant with each other. Some offences, such as those against children or other vulnerable people for example, are absolutely always going to be relevant, especially in certain types of roles. But do employers really need to know that Joe Bloggs, aged 37, was caught shoplifting or whatever when he was 17? I doubt it.

magic_pants

This is a topic very close to my heart and I think I am a classic case of where the system falls down and is massively unjust and unfair...

My story... So nearly 30 years ago I was 16 years old and out with some mates doing what 16 year olds do after a couple of cans of weak lager. Walking down the high street, picked up a traffic cone for a laugh, got 10 feet with it and a police car pulled up and next thing I know I'm in the cell for the night. Bailed to appear 2 weeks later where I got a £10 fine for theft. The first and last time I've ever been in trouble. Not so much as a speeding ticket since. Fast forward 30 years and this hangs over me like the blade of a guillotine. I work in the financial services industry (in IT, no access to any controlled systems) and managed to avoid a CRB check to date but I contract and have turned down permanent roles (good ones) time after time as I am just petrified that this would come out as part of a CRB check (which I know the Bank does carry out but to what level I don't know). I did manage to get the conviction "stepped-down" a couple of years ago but that process is now stopped and, as far as I am aware, a Standard or Enhanced check will show it up.

So, I'm just stuck in this state of limbo where I want to take a permanent role but, if I actually applied, I may lose both the opportunity for that and also my current contract role. it's just a ghastly position to be in as I did something stupid as a 16 year old but am still paying for it 30 years later when I still have nightmares about it.

Moral : Don't pinch traffic cones...it may result in a life sentence!

Seriously, I don;t know what type of CRB check would be done and nor what the outcome would be but do I want to take the chance?

Savvy_Sue

I don't know, but I suggest you take advice from NACRO about how to disclose.

Applicants to the charity I work for are asked to disclose any criminal record by sending details in a sealed envelope. These aren't looked at when shortlisting, but if the person is going to be interviewed their 'record' would be looked to make sure they weren't entirely unsuitable - which very few people would be because of the nature of our work.

You can see that it's far better to disclose the crime of nicking a traffic cone 30 years ago, than have your CRB come back with an undisclosed record for theft? No details, so maybe you robbed a bank?

I'd really hope that some advice from NACRO would set your mind at rest. We were all 16 once ... not that I ever nicked any traffic cones!

Kate78

magic_pants wrote: »

Seriously, I don't know what type of CRB check would be done and nor what the outcome would be but do I want to take the chance?

I know someone was charged for being drunk and disorderly as a student, and yes it did show up on his enhanced CRB check years later. He is now employed as a teacher, his employers sensibly realising that some stupid drunken behaviour as a teen does not translate into being a danger to children a decade after the event... :cool:

magic_pants

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

You can see that it's far better to disclose the crime of nicking a traffic cone 30 years ago, than have your CRB come back with an undisclosed record for theft? No details, so maybe you robbed a bank?

I'd really hope that some advice from NACRO would set your mind at rest. We were all 16 once ... not that I ever nicked any traffic cones!

Well as I understand it ( and I stand to be corrected ) for a "spent" conviction one can quite legally say one does not have a criminal record plus it is an offence for anyone to actually ask you to declare "spent" convictions. Time will tell I guess... Thanks for the advice!

junkmayle

Not for an enhanced CRB check Magic Pants. Your criminal record stays with you until the end of time. Totally neuters the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.