Sacking someone convicted of a sexual offence

theoretica

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Even if not public facing, the issue of others refusing to work with them could force the person to leave.

Refusing to work with him could also get the other employees into disciplinary cases for failing to follow a reasonable order and maybe bullying. Depends on how the employer wants to take it.

General_Grant

Newwashingmachine wrote: »

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

I'm surprised that an employer would be named - unless there was some relevance to the offence. How would the press know? Perhaps it was the reason for the community service outcome - that this would enable him to keep his job!

Newwashingmachine

General_Grant wrote: »

I'm surprised that an employer would be named - unless there was some relevance to the offence. How would the press know? Perhaps it was the reason for the community service outcome - that this would enable him to keep his job!

The article said where he worked don't know why but people who know where I work are asking me if I know him etc.

I'd never have imagined him doing something like that - he's married with 3 kids!

tomtontom

What was the man found guilty of? Pa*dophilia is not a criminal offence. Has he sexually assaulted a child, been accessing images etc? Committing a criminal offence is not in itself grounds to dismiss someone, the circumstances of the crime *may* be.

Newwashingmachine

whitewing wrote: »

One chap at a company where I used to work downloaded child !!!!!!. He didn't come back. Most of the staff said they wouldn't work with him. I don't know what rules he broke but it may have been bringing the company into ill repute as his employers were named in the paper I think. (And employers advertised a lot in that local paper).

It was something like this, he got caught and arrested by the police - it was videos and pictures. We only know this from the local press. It named him and where he worked. It also said he was married with 3 kids.

We're assuming he's been suspended but for all we know he might be off sick. Of course we're all going to talk about it though and a lot of staff aren't happy about working with him now.

ohreally

Newwashingmachine wrote: »

Of course we're all going to talk about it though and a lot of staff aren't happy about working with him now.

Gossip is rarely fruitful.

Why are employees unhappy to work with him now, what's changed or are they simply being judgemental?

tomtontom

ohreally wrote: »

Gossip is rarely fruitful.

Why are employees unhappy to work with him now, what's changed or are they simply being judgemental?

My thoughts also - whilst no one is condoning what has has done, it does not appear that he is a risk to anyone in the workplace, nor that it affects his ability to do his job.

Newwashingmachine

ohreally wrote: »

Gossip is rarely fruitful.

Why are employees unhappy to work with him now, what's changed or are they simply being judgemental?

tomtontom wrote: »

My thoughts also - whilst no one is condoning what has has done, it does not appear that he is a risk to anyone in the workplace, nor that it affects his ability to do his job.

Thanks - you've both put it into perspective. I'm going to keep out of the gossip now. He has got 3 kids so will need to earn a living and he just seems like a nice guy I guess the courts have punished him so no need for us to make it worse.

Poppie68

ohreally wrote: »

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

What is the actual problem, not the perceived one?

Kangaroo court?
I'm assuming this press article was correct and this pervert was found guilty due to evidence of getting his kicks by viewing harrowing scenes.... In many countries he would of been strung up from a tree and skinned alive, even that's to good though for these sub-humans.

ohreally

Poppie68 wrote: »

Kangaroo court?
I'm assuming this press article was correct and this pervert was found guilty due to evidence of getting his kicks by viewing harrowing scenes.... In many countries he would of been strung up from a tree and skinned alive, even that's to good though for these sub-humans.

Within the context of the working environment, what is the issue here? There is no work with children or vulnerable individuals.

All appears to have been fine until this information became known.

Newwashingmachine wrote: »

None of our jobs require to have a criminal records check and we don't work with children or vulnerable people.