dismissed for gross miscodnduct

ianp9191

hi,not sure if this is posted in right place,
but here goes,i`ve been sacked for gross misconduct,appealed due this week,but company historically don`t reverse decisions,i`m going to take it to a tribunal.
my question is i`m struggling to get a job,agencies don`t want to know when i mention gross misconduct.
if i get a interview do i have to tell the truth about why i left previous position??

scooby088

You don't have to tell them, but if they contact your former employer they will know then.

greatgimpo

Not necessarily. Some employers will only confirm that "Fred Bloggs worked here between September 2003 and August 2012".

SueC_2

ianp9191 wrote: »

if i get a interview do i have to tell the truth about why i left previous position??

You don't have to tell the truth about anything at an interview.

But you do have to be prepared to live with the consequence of being caught lying.

Acc72

SueC wrote: »

You don't have to tell the truth about anything at an interview.

But you do have to be prepared to live with the consequence of being caught lying.

That is a littel unfair SueC - we do not know the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and this may be overturned at appeal.

In the meantime the OP wants (needs) a new job.

As greatgimpo said, many firms these days just give a very brief reference (the company may also not want to include anything negative in case it comes back on them if there is a future tribunal case - it just isn't worth the hassle for them).

OP - I would speak to agencies and not mention the Gross Misconduct bit.

If you get a job and the offer is then taken away at a later date you can worry about it then - if you tell them up front then you are less likely to be offered a job in the first place.

SueC_2

Acc72 wrote: »

That is a littel unfair SueC - we do not know the circumstances surrounding the dismissal and this may be overturned at appeal.

I'm not sure why you think it was unfair. The OP asked whether he had to tell the truth, and I answered his question.

As you quite rightly say, I have no idea about the circumstances. But I didn't pass comment on the circumstances, I just said that if not telling the truth the OP (and anyone else for that matter) needs to be prepared for the consequences of being found out.

What's unfair about that?

somethingcorporate

SueC wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think it was unfair. The OP asked whether he had to tell the truth, and I answered his question.

As you quite rightly say, I have no idea about the circumstances. But I didn't pass comment on the circumstances, I just said that if not telling the truth the OP (and anyone else for that matter) needs to be prepared for the consequences of being found out.

What's unfair about that?

I've no idea either, seems a completely bizarre thing to say!

AP007

SueC wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think it was unfair. The OP asked whether he had to tell the truth, and I answered his question.

As you quite rightly say, I have no idea about the circumstances. But I didn't pass comment on the circumstances, I just said that if not telling the truth the OP (and anyone else for that matter) needs to be prepared for the consequences of being found out.

What's unfair about that?

That's imo a fair comment. Even when you go to agencies they get references on you (if not working) before they put you forward for anything. I have seen mine from my co and they put I was made redundant and if you have been fired they can say that too so no point lying.

GM is pretty serious so OP what was the reason behind the GM?