DH under disciplinary investigatation with ex employer.

spendingmad

Long story but will keep it brief and add further details if needed.

DH worked for employer for 10 years. During that time he was investigated 6 times under the disciplinary policy and on each occasion with company (public sector) found no case to answer.

In March 2014 he decided he needed to leave the organisation and started looking for new jobs

Seventh disciplinary served in June 2014. In August he handed in his notice after gaining other employment and his last working day was end of October.

At the beginning of May 2015 we get a call from his ex employer saying the case is going to hearing and if he is found guilt of gross-misconduct they will tell his current employer. It should be stated that his current job has nothing to do with his old job and is a completely different organisation type (commercial service/manufacturer)

Does his previous employer have the right to inform new employer 9months after he left employment and what action could the new employer take? (new employer is aware of the investigation and is happy with DH's performance etc)

Undervalued

spendingmad wrote: »

Does his previous employer have the right to inform new employer 9months after he left employment and what action could the new employer take? (new employer is aware of the investigation and is happy with DH's performance etc)

Basically yes.

If they provided a reference then, arguably at least, they owe a duty to update the recipient of any material changes to what they said. Obviously, like a reference, anything they say must be true and not deliberately misleading.

However, if they were not asked to provide a reference then they might fall foul of the very complex and evolving privacy laws. You would need to get professional advice on this.

WestonDave

The old employer can tell the new one if it feels that it needs to because a reference given previously is now incorrect - however the new information it passes on needs to be factually correct.


They need to be especially careful because a disciplinary hearing held 6 months after he left is going to be very hard to hold fairly especially if your husband isn't present to put his side of the argument. Potentially in the absence of him being there as a witness they could make an incorrect judgement and then pass that on.


The question for the new employer is whether the offence which occurred is relevant to their current job. Clearly someone for example involved in working with children who had been so say found guilty of abusing children in a previous job would be in trouble if that was passed to the new employer. Similarly if there was theft or fraud against the previous employer or its customers, that might affect his current role.


That aside, if I were the new employer I'd be wondering why the old employer is wasting its time 6 months after the event, and as a public sector organisation is wasting my taxes pursuing someone who has already left in what looks like an act of vindictiveness. However as your husband has been in his new role less than 2 years if the new employer doesn't like what they are told, they could dismiss him as he has little protection at this point.

Transformers

What were the issues for the previous disciplinaries and what is this final issue?

Is this in the care sector or in an area where your husband might come into contact with vulnerable adults or minors?

The previous employer, depending on business sector, might have a regulatory or implied ongoing expectation of a duty of care to the wider community.

spendingmad

Undervalued wrote: »

Basically yes.

If they provided a reference then, arguably at least, they owe a duty to update the recipient of any material changes to what they said. Obviously, like a reference, anything they say must be true and not deliberately misleading.

However, if they were not asked to provide a reference then they might fall foul of the very complex and evolving privacy laws. You would need to get professional advice on this.

Thank you - I believe references where not requested, but I will get DH to double check as it looks like that will be key

Undervalued

spendingmad wrote: »

Thank you - I believe references where not requested, but I will get DH to double check as it looks like that will be key

It could be although having "rights" and being able to usefully enforce them are not always the same thing. With less than two years service his current employer could dismiss without even giving a reason. Proving that the reason was information improperly divulged by his former employer (if indeed it was improper) might be difficult.

Also, as Transformers correctly point out, in certain fields of work they may be under a statutory duty.

spendingmad

WestonDave wrote: »

The old employer can tell the new one if it feels that it needs to because a reference given previously is now incorrect - however the new information it passes on needs to be factually correct.


They need to be especially careful because a disciplinary hearing held 6 months after he left is going to be very hard to hold fairly especially if your husband isn't present to put his side of the argument. Potentially in the absence of him being there as a witness they could make an incorrect judgement and then pass that on.


The question for the new employer is whether the offence which occurred is relevant to their current job. Clearly someone for example involved in working with children who had been so say found guilty of abusing children in a previous job would be in trouble if that was passed to the new employer. Similarly if there was theft or fraud against the previous employer or its customers, that might affect his current role.


That aside, if I were the new employer I'd be wondering why the old employer is wasting its time 6 months after the event, and as a public sector organisation is wasting my taxes pursuing someone who has already left in what looks like an act of vindictiveness. However as your husband has been in his new role less than 2 years if the new employer doesn't like what they are told, they could dismiss him as he has little protection at this point.

The offence holds no relevance to his current and as above we believe no reference was given so they don't need to update their reference.

DH will be attending to defend himself and clear his name. Nothing as sinister as abuse or fraud and we firmly believe it is very vindictive and an utter waste of time. :mad: