Sacked when partner imprisoned.

aileth

To be honest, the length of sentence and what he was sentenced for is irrelevent to the school regarding her. It isn't her that committed the offence, it won't appear on her CRB check as really it's nothing to do with her.

It would only matter if for example it was a family case and she was wanting the children it was regarding to stay with her and her ex-partner who was a convicted !!!!!phile. It doesn't matter that she works at a school, as it will be only him that received an order banning them from working with children if he was convicted for such a thing. Motoring offences don't ban offenders from working with children and certainly don't ban their partners.

Can you imagine how many people would get fired because someone in their family/partner got convicted of irrelevent offences? Madness.

frilly_knickers

He didn't kill anyone, I know that for sure.

He needed a vehicle for work, so I know for a fact that he was caught before while driving under a ban. The car was insured because my niece drives it, but because he was banned the insurance was invalid.

I think he was already on a suspended sentence for the previous conviction. I don't know any more, she may be hiding something but I still don't see how it gives the school the right to dismiss her.

She told me today that she is not in the union, so I will suggest a solicitor.

DWP have actually been very good and seem to be dealing with her claim quickly.

dori2o

frilly_knickers wrote: »

He didn't kill anyone, I know that for sure.

He needed a vehicle for work, so I know for a fact that he was caught before while driving under a ban. The car was insured because my niece drives it, but because he was banned the insurance was invalid.

I think he was already on a suspended sentence for the previous conviction. I don't know any more, she may be hiding something but I still don't see how it gives the school the right to dismiss her.

She told me today that she is not in the union, so I will suggest a solicitor.

DWP have actually been very good and seem to be dealing with her claim quickly.

Despite the fact she is not in a union as the minute, she can still join and they might help. Not all unions have rules which mean they won't help in existing cases or have waiting periods etc.

I klnow my Union - PCS - will give advice/support/help etc from the day you sign up, even on existing cases.

So she should look into that first.

zzzLazyDaisy

I doubt that anyone can help this lady. It sounds like she has been well and truly kicked when she's down by a callous and uncaring employer who doesn't want the 'bad publicity'. But it seems very likely that she hasn't been employed long enough to meet the new service requirements to qualify for protection from unfair dismissal - so the employer can basically do what they like with no comeback.

jacques_chirac

Playing devil's advocate - I wonder if the school have taken this action because they see the lady as being complicit in the offence, albeit not in a criminal sense, and hence have sufficient grounds to doubt her good character - breach of mutual trust and confidence? Given the repeated actions of the partner, and the likelihood that she was aware of what he was doing, I can (tentatively) see why they might have taken the action.

Takeaway_Addict

Has the OP actually answered when the person was first employed?

ValHaller

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate - I wonder if the school have taken this action because they see the lady as being complicit in the offence, albeit not in a criminal sense, and hence have sufficient grounds to doubt her good character - breach of mutual trust and confidence? Given the repeated actions of the partner, and the likelihood that she was aware of what he was doing, I can (tentatively) see why they might have taken the action.

I can't see that. If she was complicit enough for the school to be one whit justified, then she should have been convicted herself of something. But she was not even charged, it seems.

Sky_

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Has the OP actually answered when the person was first employed?

Yes, here:

frilly_knickers wrote: »

That's all that I have been told, you may be right, three years is a long time for such an offence I guess, however my niece is 100% innocent, even if it is something more serious it seems unfair that she should be punished. I believe she started the job at the beginning of January 2012, after the Christmas holidays, when her youngest started school.

If that is correct then she may be able to go to tribunal.

Galaxy1987

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate - I wonder if the school have taken this action because they see the lady as being complicit in the offence, albeit not in a criminal sense, and hence have sufficient grounds to doubt her good character - breach of mutual trust and confidence? Given the repeated actions of the partner, and the likelihood that she was aware of what he was doing, I can (tentatively) see why they might have taken the action.

Breach of mutual trust and confidence can not be used when the person has not done the act unless their is serious belief that they have. The also cannot use the card of feeling she was involved in the act as they have no proof and the police have not intervened, not even interviewing her. This act is based on someone behaviour whilst legally banned from driving, how can she be involved. She is in no way liable for the actions of someone else especially an adult.

aileth

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate - I wonder if the school have taken this action because they see the lady as being complicit in the offence, albeit not in a criminal sense, and hence have sufficient grounds to doubt her good character - breach of mutual trust and confidence? Given the repeated actions of the partner, and the likelihood that she was aware of what he was doing, I can (tentatively) see why they might have taken the action.

I don't see this. She wasn't convicted of the offence or complicit else she'd be hauled up in the dock with him. She hasn't stolen from them (as far as we're aware) or done anything to breach trust.

Did I miss how the school found out about the offences? It's none of their business. Drink driving I wouldn't think would be plastered all over the tabloids, so where they have got the info from?