Sacking someone convicted of a sexual offence

System

maninthestreet wrote: »

It's a criminal conviction, and the person involved has signed the Sex Offenders' register? They have brought their employer into disrepute.

So you are saying that anybody who obtains a criminal conviction should be sacked for bringing their employer into disrepute? Or is it only certain convictions that you think this should apply to?

System

Unfortunately a perceived attitude that somebody has brought an employer into disrepute is also good grounds for unfair dismissal. as it will probably be the employer or other employees that make it known and gainsay the individual

Undervalued

Meatloaf1981 wrote: »

I think it would be constructive dismissal if he was sacked for an offence that has no impact on his job. He might be asked to move departments or something. A lot of people convicted of these types of offences find they need to seek work elsewhere anyway because of the stigma from their colleagues.

No it wouldn't! If you are sacked it can't be constructive dismissal by definition!

The vast majority of employment contracts have a clause about not doing anything to bring the employer into disrepute. Even if this is not specifically spelt out it could easily be argued to be an implied duty.

That said, it can also be argued that if somebody has been punished according to the law why should they suffer additional penalties? That however is a moral judgement, it is hard to see an employment law problem if they are dismissed.

Meatloaf1981

I meant unfair, rather than constructive. He'd have to argue it though.

System

Undervalued wrote: »

The vast majority of employment contracts have a clause about not doing anything to bring the employer into disrepute. Even if this is not specifically spelt out it could easily be argued to be an implied duty..

If it wasn't spelt out then it is such a wooly idea/defnition that it would get classed as an unfair term

ohreally

Newwashingmachine wrote: »

He's been suspended as far as we know but everyone's saying they don't want to work with him if he returns

So the kangaroo court has decided an outcome based on what, a press article?

What is the actual problem, not the perceived one?

Undervalued

!!!!!! wrote: »

If it wasn't spelt out then it is such a wooly idea/defnition that it would get classed as an unfair term

No it wouldn't!

TELLIT01

The OP states charged AND convicted. There's no kangaroo court going on here or with the employer. The person in question has been suspended (post 5) by the employer. Certainly if the person was employed in a public facing role I think the employer would be justified in sacking them due to reputational damage to the company.
Even if not public facing, the issue of others refusing to work with them could force the person to leave.

Newwashingmachine

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The OP states charged AND convicted. There's no kangaroo court going on here or with the employer. The person in question has been suspended (post 5) by the employer. Certainly if the person was employed in a public facing role I think the employer would be justified in sacking them due to reputational damage to the company.
Even if not public facing, the issue of others refusing to work with them could force the person to leave.

This is what I was wondering. It seems pretty vague about this sort of offence (Unless you're working with children). If you're found guilty of theft and deal with money then it's OK to sack the person.

The article was in the local press and the company was named as well.

ohreally

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The person in question has been suspended (post 5) by the employer

NO, the information provided states...

Newwashingmachine wrote: »

He's been suspended as far as we know

If there is a suspension, the terms should be confidential and certainly not subject to any detail being discussed on an internet forum.

This individual had been put before a court and sentenced to a community order, why the need for the employees to be outraged, I guess the relationship was ok until this information was discovered - kangaroo court.