What can I claim for in a wronful dismissal claim.

Uncertain

mildred1978 wrote: »

When recruiting, I am perfectly entitled to remove anybody called Smith if I want to. Or anybody who has ever been employed by McDonald's. Or anybody who lives in a particular street. Yes, I would be discriminating, that's what recruitment is, but none of those would be deemed illegal.

You make a valid point as long as your examples are not taken literally. To discriminate purely on surname could potentially be racial (suppose you had picked a name with a more obvious racial or religious link then it would be very dangerous).

Similarly street, if you picked a street that is largely occupied by one ethnic group you could run into problems.

tigeress289

MILDRED, I write as I feel. You however, clearly are of the HR know it all background. As I said discrimination is discrimination and you are wrong in your attitude. Read it properly and you will see I dont expect everyone to work in a school. What I object to is some faceless person like yourself to be allowed to sack me when they dont know me but more importantly dont even check to see the benefits I brought to the school. My offence in the past had no relevence to the job I was doing. But I fully understand that with people like yourself, who thinks they are above us all, then of course people like myself will be discriminated against in the future. Thats what makes this a great forum, we are all different views on life. But we only have ONE. Enjoy it

mildred1978

tigeress289 wrote: »

MILDRED, I write as I feel. You however, clearly are of the HR know it all background. As I said discrimination is discrimination and you are wrong in your attitude. Read it properly and you will see I dont expect everyone to work in a school. What I object to is some faceless person like yourself to be allowed to sack me when they dont know me but more importantly dont even check to see the benefits I brought to the school. My offence in the past had no relevence to the job I was doing. But I fully understand that with people like yourself, who thinks they are above us all, then of course people like myself will be discriminated against in the future. Thats what makes this a great forum, we are all different views on life. But we only have ONE. Enjoy it

Recruitment is all about discrimination - orherwose youd never be able to choise 1 person for the job!!!

It's legal, provided it is not about race, sex, religion, age etc.

You can discriminate on grounds of qualifications, or work experience, etc.

In your case, with a criminal record for selling stolen goods, the school/LEA are right to be wary. You had access to a lot of high value equipment. A lot of offenders do reoffend. Not all, admittedly.

My betting is that HR advised the headteacher (no doubt reminding them that any losses would have to be replaced by the school) who made the final decision.

I do feel sorry for you. It would have been better for you not to have been given the job in the first place than have it, settle in and then be sacked.

Mands

tigeress289 wrote: »

My offence in the past had no relevence to the job I was doing.

And that is where some people would choose to disagree.

To summarise, you were convicted of handling tens of thousands of pounds of stolen goods and given a three year prison sentence. You were employed as a school caretaker which is a position of trust. Someone in that role would have access to buildings, people, assets out of hours. Would have possession of keys and the ability to enter the premises at any time of your choosing.

It's reasonable to consider the position a person would be taking as well as the crime they were convicted off. An accountant with a conviction for fraud? A personal trainer who likes to solicit prostitutes in red light districts? The conviction and the employment need to be viewed together.

A conviction that brings the honesty and integrity of an individual into question and a employment with unlimited access to a place of employment don't go well together.

Sorry,
Mands

Dangermac

There is something about this thread that doesnt seem complete. The OP's wife works in the school, yet the OP wants to sue the school for discrimination.

Furthermore, the suing of the school is entirely personal to the Head/Governors because it was ultimately their decision, based on the strong advice of the Local Authority HR.

The OP is now taking the matter to County Court, in order 'to set a legal prescedent', yet is posting on an internet forum to enquire as to what can be awarded in damages.

Anyone intent on creating a legal prescedent would normally do so with very strong legal advice/knowledge, which the OP clearly doesnt have by virtue of the original question.

Also, the OP feels that he can sue for discrimination, even although their appears to be no protected characteristics that have been offended (i.e race / age / sex etc).

Presumably, the OP is using his wife's MSE account, therefore, she is fully behind him, even although it must be putting a strain on her own employment at the school.

Something very odd about this thread. I suspect all is not what it seems

DM

tigeress289

DM, you could be a good detective. For the record I have put it as it is and yes my wife has been under pressure. I can only take the school to court as it was the employer. As for legal advice, I am always looking outside the box for different ideas and views. I know what I have achieved in the past legal wise, would be classed as fiction on here by some. So not going there. I intend to put my story of my conviction on the net soon and let others decide on who was right or wrong. There are always two sides to a story.

Mersey_2

Most are focusing on the Employment Tribunal and it's true that full employment rights now only accrue after 2 years in employment; however, an action in the County Court can still be pursued for breach of contract etc.

It depends on the full facts.

Was your probationary period ended and if so, was a proper procedure followed?

Welshwoofs

tigeress289 wrote: »

Firstly, thanks for the Link Dunroamin, I have not got a clue how to do that.
Couple of points, the list 99 contains offences and persons who would be barred from working in a school, discrimination is discrimination. In employment law, having a criminal record is not on the list but CIPD warn that this point will be argued in the future. Their own guide lines would have alowed me to keep working.

So essentially you're trying to claim discrimination because you failed a CRB check when having a clean CRB was essential for working in a school environment.

Good luck with that then.

ILW

AFAIK precedent can only be set in Crown Court. This could get expensive.

Uncertain

ILW wrote: »

AFAIK precedent can only be set in Crown Court. This could get expensive.

No, see post number 23.