Can i work in a school with a criminal record?

starchild1972

dawyldthing wrote: »

actually a lot of this is right as I know the isa has gone with the coalition coming into place http://www.isa.homeoffice.gov.uk/ and I do think in time that CRB checks will be few and far between. But I do think that there has to be a method to make sure anyone working with children is fully vetted, what that will be in future who knows

A clear CRB check only proves you haven't been caught.
It doesn't tell any employer if you are a danger/risk or no.
Many teachers and child care workers have recently been done for child abuse, clear eCRB in each case.

tigeress289

Hello
In reply to the last question, I have only ever posted once before on a council tax forum qhich I was chasing to get my band down. And that was very helpful.
To also clear some facts which seem to be getting mixed up.
I was taken on as self employed untill the previous caretaker resigned, which he did. But this is the main point. The school set my hours, paid me hourly, I could not employ anyone, they instructed me what to do through a line manager and I could do no other work as I was on call all the time. I never gave an invoice because I was paid on a time sheet.
There is case law which I have been told and belive that I was an employee.
On the CRB,The registered body is the HR as well and not the School.
Even if you have not worked 12 months ,you still have rights. The fact the HR did not follow procedure, ie dismissal letter/notice, I have rights which made it wrongful. My problem is that someone has looked at my offence and decided I am gone. Head was informed but he said I was going nowhere. Spoken to Governors and they were not informed untill after. As HR were arrogant that I was self employed and did not had to give any notice. They were not interested what I had done at the School and believe me it was a lot. I think this will be sorted one way or the other within 6 weeks from now and I will keep it updated as your posts have been great, and I mean every single one because they are as you see it. Thanks all again

cheers

Oldernotwiser

tigeress289 wrote: »

Hello

I was taken on as self employed untill the previous caretaker resigned, which he did. But this is the main point. The school set my hours, paid me hourly, I could not employ anyone, they instructed me what to do through a line manager and I could do no other work as I was on call all the time. I never gave an invoice because I was paid on a time sheet.
There is case law which I have been told and belive that I was an employee.

How did you pay tax and NICs?

poet123

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

How did you pay tax and NICs?

I think that is the nub of the matter to determine employment status.

GavB79 wrote: »

Ah the wonderful world of CRBs.

A couple of points from earlier posts:

A person doesn't need to have a CRB in place before they start work, it just needs to have been applied for. The person should be supervised until it comes through. Though this certainly shouldn't take three months.

It can be argued that builders DO NOT need a CRB to carry out work on a school premises. If an extension is being built, it is a building site and should be cordoned off as such i.e. out of bounds to the students and therefore no contact between builders and students should occur. In practice though virtually all contractors will be checked as most schools adopt a belt and braces approach to cover themselves.

A Caretaker in a school certainly does.

antrobus

tigeress289 wrote: »

Sorry Again


Wrongful dismissal can be used when the correct procedures have not been used. I am aware of the 12 month period and the Government are trying to increase that to 2 years anyway. But you still have rights

cheers

If you have been the victim of unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal then you can not make a claim unless you have worked for your employer for longer than 12 months.

http://www.winstonsolicitors.co.uk/12-month-rule-unfair-dismissal.htm

But there are exceptions. Which one do you think applies in your case?

GavB79

poet123 wrote: »

A Caretaker in a school certainly does.

Please support this statement

t0rt0ise

starchild1972 wrote: »

A clear CRB check only proves you haven't been caught.
It doesn't tell any employer if you are a danger/risk or no.
Many teachers and child care workers have recently been done for child abuse, clear eCRB in each case.

A lot of people say this and it totally misses the point. I am sure that running a CRB check stops certain people with a criminal record from even applying for the job which has to be a good thing. It also weeds out some unsuitable people who get an unsatisfactory check. It will also stop those who you talk of who do abuse from getting another job with children. That has to be a good thing.

poet123

GavB79 wrote: »

Please support this statement

A Caretaker in school (if the employment began after a specific date in 2002 )is required by LEA's to have a current CRB as a condition of employment. Under the safeguarding rules no school GB should allow him to start work prior to this being obtained, as it is impractical to ensure he is supervised at all times.

The following is taken from Ofsted guidance and random LEA information.

Contracted staff
Contracted staff that come into regular contact with children and young people – such as cleaning, caretaking and kitchen staff – should be included on the single central register (the next set of FAQs covers the single central register); as in the case of agency supply staff, written assurances from the providing organisation – for example, the
local authority – or copies of relevant contracts for staff who have access to children are sufficient proof that the relevant checks have been undertaken. There is no need for schools and colleges to repeat these checks.
This requirement is usually included in the contract that schools, colleges and/or local authorities will have set up. Therefore a letter or copy of a contract that states that an agency or contractor has carried out all appropriate checks, including CRB checks, is sufficient.
[FONT=&quot]6.3 Caretakers, Catering Staff (including lunchtime controllers) & Cleaners[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A CRB disclosure is required for all caretakers, catering staff and cleaners working in schools.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Final%206836-SafeGuard.Chd%20bkmk.pdfStatutory changes

underpinned by regulations are:
the requirement for a CRB Enhanced
Disclosure for all new appointments to
the schools workforce under the
intended School Staffing (England)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2006;

Job Ad;
School Caretaker

BROOK STREET BUREAU - Ilford - Barking, Essex Essex UK
All applicants must be prepared to undergo a CRB check prior to starting work as this a legal requirement as well as possessing a full UK driving licence and access to a vehicle. Some of the typical duties range from unlocking and locking up main gates...
from: totaljobs.com





No school worth its salt would employ a Caretaker without having a CRB (preferably enhanced) in place.

Oldernotwiser

poet123 wrote: »

I think that is the nub of the matter to determine employment status.

Which is why it should be easy for the OP to tell us.

SarEl

I think we are getting somewhat bogged down in whether schools should have eCRB's when the fact is that they must.

The OP is correct that they qualify as employed and not self-employed, and the law does support their argument. But so what? The employer is still the school and not HR and so the OP must sue the school for one weeks notice pay (which is all they are entitled to for worngful dismissal). Despite all the protestations of the Head and the Governors I still do not believe them - only an employer can terminate a contract, no matter what kind of contract it is. The LEA, where appropriate, can overrule both if they have control of the school and if the school is acting inappropropriately - but not HR. No matter what the in's and out's of this situation may be, it is relatively clear that the school authorities have acted wholly inappropraitely in a number of areas, without due regard for employment law or safeguarding issues.