Can i work in a school with a criminal record?

poet123

SarEl wrote: »

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.

Nor do I. I know how these decisions are arrived at and who is responsible for taking them.

However, in some schools catering and caretaking services are outsourced and as such an outside agent is actually the employer, although in some instances when this has seemed to be the case when investigations have been made the school has still been deemed the employer.

GavB79

Also from various Local Authority guidance:

Can someone start work in a school prior to the full CRB clearance coming through?
- Our advice is that ideally you await the full CRB clearance to come back before starting someone in post. The Head does however have the discretion to start someone pending receipt of the CRB Disclosure providing all other pre-employment checks, including the check against the ISA list, have come back clear and complete and the CRB Application is in progress.
- The need for appropriate supervision for those starting work prior to the result of the CRB Disclosure being known does need to reflect what is known about the person concerned, their experience, the nature of their duties and the level of responsibility they will carry. This risk assessment should be completed and held on file.


My emphasis. Maybe your Authority is different.

GavB79

SarEl wrote: »

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.

In many cases, HR IS the Local Authority.

SarEl

poet123 wrote: »

Nor do I. I know how these decisions are arrived at and who is responsible for taking them.

However, in some schools catering and caretaking services are outsourced and as such an outside agent is actually the employer, although in some instances when this has seemed to be the case when investigations have been made the school has still been deemed the employer.

Yes, and even when outsourced under contracts - it is the LEA who is the employer and not HR. But in this case the school employed them so the school must be responsible for the dismissal. Although you do raise an interesting point - I wonder if the school actually had the authority to hire them in the first place, which may explain the tortuous "self-employment" gambit? Some things like caretaking are retained within some LEA's simply because it is more cost-effective for schools, since a larger caretaking force can be deployed to cover holidays and sickness than schools could manage. If so, then the LEA would have the power to "dismiss" someone that they never employed!

SarEl

GavB79 wrote: »

In many cases, HR IS the Local Authority.

No. They are not. HR are a department of a local authority. The local authority is the local authority! HR departments advise the local authority on compliance with employment law and conditions (hopefully!).

poet123

GavB79 wrote: »

Also from various Local Authority guidance:

Can someone start work in a school prior to the full CRB clearance coming through?
- Our advice is that ideally you await the full CRB clearance to come back before starting someone in post. The Head does however have the discretion to start someone pending receipt of the CRB Disclosure providing all other pre-employment checks, including the check against the ISA list, have come back clear and complete and the CRB Application is in progress.
- The need for appropriate supervision for those starting work prior to the result of the CRB Disclosure being known does need to reflect what is known about the person concerned, their experience, the nature of their duties and the level of responsibility they will carry. This risk assessment should be completed and held on file.


My emphasis. Maybe your Authority is different.

In practice any reputable school simply wouldn't risk it, not least because Ofsted would downgrade their safeguarding level and if you don't score highly in that area you cannot be deemed as "Outstanding" overall.

Also, look at the text I have highlighted in red....and tell me that someone known to have been convicted of dishonesty would pass that caveat for the post of Caretaker.

marcouk

poet123 wrote: »

In practice any reputable school simply wouldn't risk it, not least because Ofsted would downgrade their safeguarding level and if you don't score highly in that area you cannot be deemed as "Outstanding" overall.

It all depends on the individual inspector, I've known some schools skate through on safeguarding with an incomplete single central register and one where the inspector told the school they'd be failed on safeguarding right there and then.

SarEl

marcouk wrote: »

and one where the inspector told the school they'd be failed on safeguarding right there and then.

And quite rightly so. It does not matter whether, as an individual, people believe that offenders should be given a second chance (which actually, in the right circumstances, I not only beleive but put into practice). But it should be a decision - not an ommission. As someone who has witnessed first hand the results of safeguarding failures on more than one occasion, anyone who thinks that it isn't that important to carefully consider the consequences of employing ex-offenders with children needs their heads testing. It is not just a matter of sex crimes - that is the horrific tip of the iceberg. Children are routinely recruited into all sorts of criminal activity - if you think that 11 year old rioters / looters is bad, wonder who it was who got them into it - and any criminal offence, and the attitude of the person towards their offence, is important, An inspector turning a blind eye to safeguading issues deserves to be dismised.

tigeress289

The thing with Law is that it is not always simple. I was employed as self employed. But since this has happened in Law I was employed by the School. I have no doubt I can get 1 weeks money and in doing so opens the door to the wrongful dismissal. The difference here is I do not blame the School. The Local Authority is the registered body and the HR is the countersign. It is on the CRB and instructions of HR that I am gone. HR believe that I was self employed and with that view has had me dismissed. They are wrong and on the point I can go for wrongful dismissal against the as it is the CRB they have acted on. On self employment, you would pay your own tax and insurance anyway but that does not prove you were not employed. One simple caselaw is City & East London Family Health Service vs Durcan EAT/721/96. Employed as a self employed Dentist for every monday of the week and then dismissed. Because he could not work for anyone else on a monday, he was employed by the Authority.
Going back to my dismissal, because the HR did not follow the correct procedure it is HR whom I will go after. I have been shown how but have to wait untill the Governors get some answers in writing from HR.
CRB's are going to change,there is no doubt. I have checked and Contractors is a lot of cases do not have to have a CRB. I have looked at the guidance of my local authority and it clearly states no CRB.
The Head and the Governors were denied the chance to have a meeting as HR were confident about the employment status.
Back to the CRB check, everyone who starts work in the School were list 99 straight away. And having taken advice, if you pass that you are 99% there. HR are only there to advise and from one Authority to another there will be different views on the same thing.
The same goes with Law, as it changes all the time because of the way Lawyers interpret it. Today things have been quiet but I think I will have some updates by them.
all the best and thanks again

SarEl

I think you should check what wrong dismissal actually is. because it is not what you think it is. It is dismissal in breach of contract - in other words, in your case, notice pay and notice pay only. The case you have quoted was someone who had worked there for more than 12 months. And as we keep telling you - less than 12 months and you have no right to claim. So whoever dismissed you could have had the dismissal delivered by tap-dancing elephants in tutu's - it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference because you have no right to claim unfair dismissal.