Checks performed after employment start

Undervalued

prowla said:

I think it would be reasonable to do periodic checks on people who work in education and come into contact with children.

Of course, the checking criteria should be against information relevant to the job, as opposed to just plain snooping (eg. Someone having been declared bankrupt could be critical in a financial environment, but completely irrelevant in an educational role).

An alternative approach an employer could take is to have a contractual requirement that their workers have a current CRB/DBS check (I've had that in a contract before).

"Just plain snooping" is of course perfectly lawful providing it looks only at publicly available information or what can be seen from a public place! Equally an employer can contact a former employer, or indeed anybody else and ask questions about an employee. Whether they should reply or not is another matter but there is noting unlawful about asking the question.

AskAsk

74jax said:

AskAsk said:

does seem a bit odd.  have you asked them why they have decided to pick you out?  the only time i had to do this was when I had to do a security check before i could work on a sensitive client but the checks were slightly different.

are they doing this for everyone or is it just you?  wonder if it may be a new requirement from their clients?

@AskAsk. Op has said
For the avoidance of doubt - I have nothing to hide. This is happening to all employees in the company also, not just me.

then the OP's original question isn't in context as he asked if it would be lawful for his employer to do the checks 3.5 years after he has joined as they did not do this before he joined, implying that they missed out doing this by mistake and now has to do it, or has become suspicious and so has requested it to be done.

if the checks is done company wide then others would have been in the company for less time or more time and they would have already had the checks done before they joined.

the question is not one related personally to the OP then, but whether the employer has to right to vet all staff again at some point as an exercise.  the answer almost certainly will be yes.

algray

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

AskAsk

algray said:

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

as far as i am aware, employees are expected to report any criminal convictions to their employer without being asked.  the onus is on the employee to disclose this information without having to be asked by their employer, so if the empoyer finds out at any time and this has not been disclosed then it would work against the employee.

Undervalued

algray said:

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

You have a duty to act in good faith. So lying by omission when you should reasonably have known that something may be of concern to the employer is, effectively, lying.

There are special rules protecting the disclosure of spent convictions for many jobs, although there is a long list of occupations where they must be disclosed. 

A new conviction during your employment should be disclosed. It may affect the employer's insurance cover and depending on the circumstances any publicity about it could easily bring the employer into disrepute.

Marvel1

Jillanddy said:

AskAsk said:

algray said:

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

as far as i am aware, employees are expected to report any criminal convictions to their employer without being asked.  the onus is on the employee to disclose this information without having to be asked by their employer, so if the empoyer finds out at any time and this has not been disclosed then it would work against the employee.

That is not true though. An applicant must declare unspent convictions if asked - there is no obligation to volunteer information not asked for. Unless the role is one where there is an obligation to prove ones criminal record, in which case there are specific rules around DBS checks which apply. It is illegal for an employer to ask about spent convictions unless the role requires disclosure. 

If a conviction is spent before taking up the employment and an employer subsequently finds out about it by other means, and dismisses, then that dismissal will almost certainly be unfair. 

But under 2 years they can though can't they, unfair but legal?

Not picking holes :-) just me understanding the 2 year rule more.

AskAsk

Jillanddy said:

AskAsk said:

algray said:

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

as far as i am aware, employees are expected to report any criminal convictions to their employer without being asked.  the onus is on the employee to disclose this information without having to be asked by their employer, so if the empoyer finds out at any time and this has not been disclosed then it would work against the employee.

That is not true though. An applicant must declare unspent convictions if asked - there is no obligation to volunteer information not asked for. Unless the role is one where there is an obligation to prove ones criminal record, in which case there are specific rules around DBS checks which apply. It is illegal for an employer to ask about spent convictions unless the role requires disclosure. 

If a conviction is spent before taking up the employment and an employer subsequently finds out about it by other means, and dismisses, then that dismissal will almost certainly be unfair. 

it may depend on the employer but my work policy and my husband's work policy states that we must declare convictions (and prosecutions before conviction) and bankruptcy to the employer when this happens.

my company is FCA regulated and my husband works in education, so I think it is standard for our employers to expect declarations by employees without them having to ask.

Jillanddy

AskAsk said:

Jillanddy said:

AskAsk said:

algray said:

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

as far as i am aware, employees are expected to report any criminal convictions to their employer without being asked.  the onus is on the employee to disclose this information without having to be asked by their employer, so if the empoyer finds out at any time and this has not been disclosed then it would work against the employee.

That is not true though. An applicant must declare unspent convictions if asked - there is no obligation to volunteer information not asked for. Unless the role is one where there is an obligation to prove ones criminal record, in which case there are specific rules around DBS checks which apply. It is illegal for an employer to ask about spent convictions unless the role requires disclosure. 

If a conviction is spent before taking up the employment and an employer subsequently finds out about it by other means, and dismisses, then that dismissal will almost certainly be unfair. 

it may depend on the employer but my work policy and my husband's work policy states that we must declare convictions (and prosecutions before conviction) and bankruptcy to the employer when this happens.

my company is FCA regulated and my husband works in education, so I think it is standard for our employers to expect declarations by employees without them having to ask.

Yes and no.  FCA regulations are exempted and there are regulatory standards- so yes,  there are no spent convictions.  Your husband, well that's interesting.. unless he's in a very senior and regulated role,  convictions certainly may need to be declared via a DBS check, but they're is no generalfight to know about bankruptcies.

robatwork

My take on this is that your employer strongly suspects one of your colleagues is hiding something. 
To prevent accusations of a witch hunt, they are "testing" everyone. 

Would be the same with drug testing. Have to be seen to be fair. 

Undervalued

Marvel1 said:

Jillanddy said:

AskAsk said:

algray said:

Thanks all. Seems the consensus is to give them the information, albeit much of it is on my CV, which is pretty much my LinkedIn profile.

However, whilst I have no criminal convictions or anything else to hide, hypothetically I do think it would be an interesting situation if I did. Having not declared a conviction at start of employment, due to not being asked, could they later dismiss an employee for it? Surely the onus is on the employer to satisfy themselves of the fitness of a prospect prior to offering employment and they cannot thereafter determine the employee is no longer suitable.

Of course if the employee lied about information provided to the employer i.e. their CV, it's no stretch to assume that is grounds for dismissal.

as far as i am aware, employees are expected to report any criminal convictions to their employer without being asked.  the onus is on the employee to disclose this information without having to be asked by their employer, so if the empoyer finds out at any time and this has not been disclosed then it would work against the employee.

That is not true though. An applicant must declare unspent convictions if asked - there is no obligation to volunteer information not asked for. Unless the role is one where there is an obligation to prove ones criminal record, in which case there are specific rules around DBS checks which apply. It is illegal for an employer to ask about spent convictions unless the role requires disclosure. 

If a conviction is spent before taking up the employment and an employer subsequently finds out about it by other means, and dismisses, then that dismissal will almost certainly be unfair. 

But under 2 years they can though can't they, unfair but legal?

Not picking holes :-) just me understanding the 2 year rule more.

No. If somebody with less than two years employment could show that this was the reason for their dismissal they could still claim unfair dismissal as the "two year rule" doesn't apply.

The same would apply for other protected matters such as genuine "whistle blowing", trade union membership, health and safety breaches etc.