Remanded in Custody, Implications for Employment?

tomtontom

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

You should have the right to return to your job once proven innocent. The employer cannot dismiss until then. Did Micheal Levell or William Roache get dismissed? Their allegations are serious.

It is not as simple as that, it all depends on the individual circumstances. The employer may choose to conduct a disciplinary investigation and dismiss based on the balance of probabilities. As an alternative they may suspend pending the outcome of the case, in which case they would not need to pay the employee if help in custody. What is key is that they follow the correct procedure - a charge is not sufficient to dismiss, the facts as reasonably known to the employer may (or may not) be.

Of course none of the above applies if the employee has worked there for less than two years.

Bantex_2

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

You should have the right to return to your job once proven innocent. The employer cannot dismiss until then. Did Micheal Levell or William Roache get dismissed? Their allegations are serious.

They are freelance.

Undervalued

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

You should have the right to return to your job once proven innocent. The employer cannot dismiss until then.

Oh yes they can!

An employer does not need anything like the criminal standard of proof to dismiss fairly (in law). They only require a "reasonable belief".

Also, the fact that the employee cannot work (albeit through no fault of their own) can amount to frustration of contract.

Obviously an employer may take a more understanding line if they so choose but they may well be able to fairly dismiss the employee even if he is ultimately found not guilty.

Also, remember that being found not guilty is not the same thing as being proved innocent! All it means is that the court did not find the case proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

antrobus

harrys_dad wrote: »

Hi everyone, a relative of mine has been remanded in custody because they have been charged with something and have nowhere to stay. What should they tell their employer about not being able to go to work? What are the implications for their continued employment? They have been continuously employed in the same job for over two years.

Thanks.

I know one thing. The employer does not have to pay them whilst they are on remand. See Burns v Santander UK Plc.

It might be worthwhile reading the reports of that case.

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

You should have the right to return to your job once proven innocent. The employer cannot dismiss until then. ...

It depends. The Royal Mail were judged to have acted properly when they dismissed Roger Kearney when he was arrested and charged with murder even though he'd been released on bail.

P.S. Of course, Kearney was subsequently convicted of murder, although I believe he was maintaining his innocence.

Transformers

Undervalued wrote: »

Also, remember that being found not guilty is not the same thing as being proved innocent! All it means is that the court did not find the case proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh come on, there're only two choices (although Scotland also has Not Proven) so a person who has been found to be 'not guilty' should not continue to be viewed with suspicion. That's just wrong.

antrobus

Undervalued wrote: »

Oh yes they can!

An employer does not need anything like the criminal standard of proof to dismiss fairly (in law). They only require a "reasonable belief". .....

Actually I think an employer who dismissed an employee that had been charged with a criminal offence on the basis of a "reasonable belief" that they had actually committed the crime, would get done for contempt of court. It's not whether or not the employee has committed the crime that matters, it's whether or not the fact of being arrested and charged with a crime gives the employer a reason to dismiss.

Undervalued

Transformers wrote: »

Oh come on... There are only two choices (Scotland also has Not Proven) so a person who has been found to be 'not guilty' should not continue to be viewed with suspicion. That's just wrong.

I quite agree with your sentiment but I was just stating the facts!

Undervalued

antrobus wrote: »

Actually I think an employer who dismissed an employee that had been charged with a criminal offence on the basis of a "reasonable belief" that they had actually committed the crime, would get done for contempt of court.

Very unlikely in most circumstances. In any case the fact that the employee has been absent from work due to being in custody is sufficient in itself.

antrobus wrote: »

It's not whether or not the employee has committed the crime that matters, it's whether or not the fact of being arrested and charged with a crime gives the employer a reason to dismiss.

I agree, that was the point I was primarily making.

BillJones

antrobus wrote: »

Actually I think an employer who dismissed an employee that had been charged with a criminal offence on the basis of a "reasonable belief" that they had actually committed the crime, would get done for contempt of court.

Can I ask, then, if your neighbour had been to court for offences against children, but had been acquitted because a search had been carried out without the correct paperwork, would you still employ them as a babysitter?

If not, why not? It is EXACTLY the same case, of you not wanting to employ someone who was acquitted.

And yes, we are talking about a casual arrangement not a formal employment contract, so the differences there matter in terms of unfair dismissal, but surely you don't expect to apply a different standard based on this technicality, do you?

Yorkie1

antrobus wrote: »

Actually I think an employer who dismissed an employee that had been charged with a criminal offence on the basis of a "reasonable belief" that they had actually committed the crime, would get done for contempt of court. It's not whether or not the employee has committed the crime that matters, it's whether or not the fact of being arrested and charged with a crime gives the employer a reason to dismiss.

I do not think you are correct re. contempt of court. Totally different legal system (civil law vs criminal law), different legal issues, different burdens of proof.

I agree that the issue for the employer is whether there is a legal basis for dismissal without it being unfair. I don't know whether being charged with an offence (this requires sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction) in itself might, for example, be enough for dismissal on the grounds of bringing the employer into disrepute.