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

getmore4less

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.

Your life must be a big problem,

Can't drive a car*look who makes them), shop, take a bus, train, go to a hospital when ill.

what about your phone, PC, chances are your internet provider employs ex cons so no email or posts.

wonder who built your house.

Reality is you don't have a clue which services you use employ people you don't approve of.

Sooki

If he gets three months, he'll most likely serve half of that and could possibly be entitled to an electronic tag for some of that, so if he is a good worker maybe you could work out something together for a few weeks, i.e. hold the job open on £0.00 pay whilst you get an agency worker to cover for the time he's inside. Although I would be concerned why he didn't comply with the community service, should he have took time off work to attend for example and couldn't for some reason.
Not knowing the details is difficult but the person will find it really difficult getting future employment if he has no job to go back to.

surveyqueenuk

denla wrote: »

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.

Sorry to have to tell you but every energy supplier in the country has a policy of non-discrimination against ex-offenders...........

Naf

SarEl wrote: »

Oh dear, what an awful lot of processes and procedures for one very simple problem.

Employees are expected to attend work. The only exception to this would be if they are on leave, or legitimately ill and signed off (or seld-certified). If Her Majesty is preventing him from attending work, then this is frustration of contract. He can't come.

He hasn't committed misconduct or gross misconduct - why would you want to suggest that he has, and open yourself to the argument that you dismissed unfairly because he hadn't? He hasn't done anything to you and you aren't claiming he has.

Just wait until he doesn't turn up for work. You aren't required to pay him for days he is absent. If you get an explanation from him /someone, then the action is "I am very sorry but he is expected to attend work and if he doesn't, he's resigned, and if he is prevented from doing so, it's frustration of contract". if you don't, after a couple of days absennce write to him and say that he hasn't turned up for work or phoned in sick and if he doesn't do one or the other immediately you will take it that he has resigned.

Should take about five minutes at most, either way. No need to get all disciplinary! Not unless he doesn't get sent down and you still want to dismiss - that may be a little more complicated.

What he said, as ever great advice.

The reasons behind him not turning up are none of your concern (in this case you happen to know; but he wouldn't have to tell you - what if he was caught in the act, held & sent down without ever having chance to contact you?). You treat it exactly as you would for anyone being AWOL.

phill99

Look up 'frustration of contract' on google.

Where a contract ( in this case a contract of employment) can no longer be executed (ie the employee can not perform his part of the contract by coming to work), the contract can be terminated.

You don't have to go through dismissal proceedings or gross misconduct etc.

Once he goes to prison he can no longer come to work, and therefore you as an employer can discharge the contract of employment.

There is a mass of case law about this, so no need for people to go barking up the wrong tree.

phill99

Some of you also seem to be ranting on about not employing ex offenders. You need to look at the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This sets outs times after which a convicted person doesn't have to declare his crime to prospective employers. There are certain crimes that always have to be declared, such as murder. However, for most offenders, after a certain number of years, their crimes no longer have to be declared. On that basis, I can assure you that more people than you realise are serving you in shops, driving your buses and fixing your plumbing than you could possibly imagine.

In my time in the construction industry I have employed three people that have been to prison. One for burglary, one for ABH, one for possession of a fire arm? All have been excellent workers and all completely trust worthy.

And strangely, not one of my customers in all the years I have run my company has ever asked me about previous convictions of employees.

Remember it is only the judiciary in this country that have the powers to punish people. We as citizens do not have that right.

CFC

SarEl wrote: »

It's easy to tar all offenders or ex-offenders with being mad, bad or dangerous. Much harder to face the truth that this is far from the truth. Pretty much like describing all unemployed people as benefit scroungers, just because there are a few who are... You don't happen to be unemployed do you?

LOL. Come off it on this one Sar-El, you can't equate calling all unemployed benefit scroungers with calling an offender a jailbird and a general bad egg.

And until the conviction has expired, they are offenders, so you can't even call them ex-offenders.

I've been foolish enough in the past to give people a second chance, and never once has it worked out. I know it's the law of averages, but on average, it appears to me they go on offending or being generally unemployable due to attitude,lack of common sense, or general lack of intelligence.

Phil99 has had an entirely different experience - possibly due to the sector he works in.

tygr

Stephen Fry has been in prison.

So, anyone who has a problem with ex-offenders, make sure you don't watch QI or any documentaries or awards shows he presents.

UsernameAlreadyExists

I was going to post on this earlier but didn't get around to it.

The OP didn't name the offence, or the nature of the employment so any judgements seem to be based purely on opinion. (OK, I accept I've not looked at previous posts so there may well be information I am missing).

I was going to throw into the pot ... is it OK for a child sex offender to work in a school once they've served their time?

There's going to be both personal, and indeed instituitional predujices at play here so it's a very broad brush.

I, myself, work in an environment where ex "criminals" would not be employed due to the sensitive nature of the industry I work in. As such I can understand certain viewpoints, but equally, an unrelated crime offender should be allowed to work in a completely different environment without consequence.

zzzLazyDaisy

phill99 wrote: »

Look up 'frustration of contract' on google.
Where a contract ( in this case a contract of employment) can no longer be executed (ie the employee can not perform his part of the contract by coming to work), the contract can be terminated.

You don't have to go through dismissal proceedings or gross misconduct etc. Once he goes to prison he can no longer come to work, and therefore you as an employer can discharge the contract of employment.

There is a mass of case law about this, so no need for people to go barking up the wrong tree.

What you say may seem logical, but the courts don't necessarily agree with you. In employment law the courts have moved away from frustration of contract as a cause of termination of employment, and for short prison sentences, an employer is on very shaky ground if they rely on frustration.

More and more, employers are expected to follow a fair procedure and to carry out a fair dismissal based on that facts, rather than relying on frustration of contract.

As an example, in the recent case of Prior v City Plumbing Supplies Ltd (EAT March 2012) it was held that an 18 week prison sentence was not long enough to frustrate the contract of employment, and that Mr Prior had been unfairly dismissed. In that case, the employee had been given a warning for bringing the company into disrepute when he was arrested for assault, and was then dismissed when he was sentenced to prison for 18 weeks for the same offence.

That scenario is not unlike the position that OP has found himself in.