Employee could be getting sent down - what are my options?

denla

scooby088 wrote: »

So what if the offence was not paying the tv licence and then the subsequent fine??? Not everyone who has been released from prison is a murderer or rapist. Ex offenders have has much right to employment as anyone else has.

If you can afford to own a TV then you're in the position to sell it to help pay the fine. There's also the option of begging family or friends to help you pay the fine so you can later repay back with interest.

zzzLazyDaisy

I am going to tell you something that you probably do not want to hear.

I once defended a major household name company in tribunal, on an unfair dismissal claim. The employee had told them he was going to court for a traffic offence. He didn't turn in for work the next day, and investigations revealed that he had gone to prison for three months for assault. The company simply terminated his employment without following any procedures, on the basis that failing to attend work for three months, and without even contacting them to let them know what had happened, amounted to gross misconduct. They did not follow any procedures, but simply wrote to him informing him of their decision.

The tribunal found that his dismissal was unfair because he was entitled to be given the opportunity to state his case and said that they should have written to him in prison informing him that they were considering dismissing him, and given him the opportunity to put his point of view before making a decision.

In that case the employee was working with the public and he went to prison for assault. The tribunal accepted that he would have been fairly dismissed if a proper procedure had been carried out, so compensation was limited to the time it would have taken to carry out a fair disciplinary procedure. From memory I think he got a month's wages on the basis that the company would have had to allow extra time for the process to take place in writing and through the post.

Anyway, the point is that each case is decided on its facts. The question of whether it is reasonable to dismiss the employee depends on the facts, but the fact that you did not dismiss when he was given community service, suggests that you did not view the original crime as sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. You may struggle with an argument that you cannot cover his job for three months - after all he will probably be out in less time for good behaviour. Also if an employee is off work on maternity leave, or after having a heart attack, you would need to find cover during a similar period of time.

Believe me, I am not defending the system here.

What I AM saying is that you need to get objective legal advice from someone who has full access to all the facts before making any decisions.

custardy

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I am going to tell you something that you probably do not want to hear.

I once defended a major household name company in tribunal, on an unfair dismissal claim. The employee had told them he was going to court for a traffic offence. He didn't turn in for work the next day, and investigations revealed that he had gone to prison for three months for assault. The company simply terminated his employment without following any procedures, on the basis that failing to attend work for three months, and without even contacting them to let them know what had happened, amounted to gross misconduct. They did not follow any procedures, but simply wrote to him informing him of their decision.

The tribunal found that his dismissal was unfair because he was entitled to be given the opportunity to state his case and said that they should have written to him in prison informing him that they were considering dismissing him, and given him the opportunity to put his point of view before making a decision.

In that case the employee was working with the public and he went to prison for assault. The tribunal accepted that he would have been fairly dismissed if a proper procedure had been carried out, so compensation was limited to the time it would have taken to carry out a fair disciplinary procedure. From memory I think he got a month's wages on the basis that the company would have had to allow extra time for the process to take place in writing and through the post.

Anyway, the point is that each case is decided on its facts. The question of whether it is reasonable to dismiss the employee depends on the facts, but the fact that you did not dismiss when he was given community service, suggests that you did not view the original crime as sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. You may struggle with an argument that you cannot cover his job for three months - after all he will probably be out in less time for good behaviour. Also if an employee is off work on maternity leave, or after having a heart attack, you would need to find cover during a similar period of time.

Believe me, I am not defending the system here.

What I AM saying is that you need to get objective legal advice from someone who has full access to all the facts before making any decisions.

shouldnt that be writing to them at the address they hold for the employee?

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I am going to tell you something that you probably do not want to hear.

I once defended a major household name company in tribunal, on an unfair dismissal claim. The employee had told them he was going to court for a traffic offence. He didn't turn in for work the next day, and investigations revealed that he had gone to prison for three months for assault. The company simply terminated his employment without following any procedures, on the basis that failing to attend work for three months, and without even contacting them to let them know what had happened, amounted to gross misconduct. They did not follow any procedures, but simply wrote to him informing him of their decision.

The tribunal found that his dismissal was unfair because he was entitled to be given the opportunity to state his case and said that they should have written to him in prison informing him that they were considering dismissing him, and given him the opportunity to put his point of view before making a decision.

In that case the employee was working with the public and he went to prison for assault. The tribunal accepted that he would have been fairly dismissed if a proper procedure had been carried out, so compensation was limited to the time it would have taken to carry out a fair disciplinary procedure. From memory I think he got a month's wages on the basis that the company would have had to allow extra time for the process to take place in writing and through the post.

Anyway, the point is that each case is decided on its facts. The question of whether it is reasonable to dismiss the employee depends on the facts, but the fact that you did not dismiss when he was given community service, suggests that you did not view the original crime as sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. You may struggle with an argument that you cannot cover his job for three months - after all he will probably be out in less time for good behaviour. Also if an employee is off work on maternity leave, or after having a heart attack, you would need to find cover during a similar period of time.

Believe me, I am not defending the system here.

What I AM saying is that you need to get objective legal advice from someone who has full access to all the facts before making any decisions.

Quite right too. That is why I said that frustration of contract, rather than dismissal for being in prison, was the way to go. But I agree that knowing what you are doing, or having someone who does, is always the cheapest option, even if it costs you money. It is small employers who most often think they can't afford it, and most often are the ones who can't not afford it.

SarEl

denla wrote: »

People are judgemental at the end of the day, and soon as they know you've been to prison they will try their best to find a reasonable excuse to get rid of you without getting in trouble with the law. Only way companies bother hiring ex-convicts is if there not a single other applicant within a 50 mile radius. If there is I'm confident the ex-convict won't be given a chance.

I'm not unemployed, and I do judge benefit scroungers. It's easy to tell when someone's unemployed and making an effort to find a job. It's also easy to tell when someone applies that 2-3 jobs only because it's a minimum requirement by the job centre.

I should point out that in a barristers chambers there are always other applicants within 50 miles! It is not about having no applicants - it is about morals and ethics, which appears to be something you are unfamiliar with. I do not feel a need to conform to the lowest common denominator of "what people think", and nor do I feel an imperative to follow the crowd like a sheep because they "all" think that way. That way lies the gas chambers.... If there were not people who think as you do them people with criminal records would not feel that they needed to hide the fact. Many people with criminal records go on to be good employees, good parents, and in some cases, insprirations to others to not follow the same path they did. People do not come in one size, and they make mistakes for all sorts of reasons. If they are written off we are creating the "criminal underclass" that you so fear, that have no ties to, or investment in, society.

zzzLazyDaisy

custardy wrote: »

shouldnt that be writing to them at the address they hold for the employee?

No, because at that point they were aware that he was in prison and which prison that was. The whole point of procedures is to give the employee a genuine opportunity to state their case - writing to an address when the employer knows the employee isn't actually there, isn't going to give the employer a 'get out of jail free' card.

Takeaway_Addict

paddedjohn wrote: »

A bit judgemental don't you think? Going to prison is punishment enough without people like you serving sentence on him aswell.

To be fair you are judging a judgement with no knowledge.

It really depends on why he got the community service for for me, if it was for theft then in a retail shop I would be wanting rid as he would be a risk that I do not need and frankly the trust in them would have gone.

If it was something totally unrelated such as say council tax non payment then I would most likely try and assist the employee as much as possible

paddedjohn

denla wrote: »

I'm guessing you've been to prison before...? Yes it's judgemental but it's good judgement that every employer should exercise. I wouldn't feel safe using the service of a company who hires ex-criminals because I'd always be questioning their integrity. I'd simply use the same service from another company instead. And if I'm working for a company hiring ex-criminals, I sure wouldn't feel safe.

No ive never even been in trouble before but i wouldnt judge someone just because they have been to prison. The OP states that they wouldnt employ anyone whos been in prison before, not that they wont employ thieves, murderers, fiddlers etc just a total blanket ban on any ex offender which is totally out of order in my mind. What should we do then? throw each and every ex con on the dole for the rest of their lives.

paddedjohn

custardy wrote: »

well they opted into the sentence by not meeting their requirements of community service in the 1st place
does the OP put their business on hold for 3 months?

Its got nothing to do with waiting for 3 months, the OP said they wouldnt want to employ anybody whos been to prison. What if the agency sent him a replacement that had been in prison for 6 months over 20 years ago? would the OP be in the right to send him packing?

SarEl

paddedjohn wrote: »

No ive never even been in trouble before but i wouldnt judge someone just because they have been to prison. The OP states that they wouldnt employ anyone whos been in prison before, not that they wont employ thieves, murderers, fiddlers etc just a total blanket ban on any ex offender which is totally out of order in my mind. What should we do then? throw each and every ex con on the dole for the rest of their lives.

Really? But you defended people with records so you must have been in prison mustn't you? Because only people who have would stick up for common criminals...

Now me, I've been in dozens of the places. Can hardly count them....