Employer suddenly requires a DBS Enhanced Check

MaidaVale3499

Posting  for a friend to protect her identity on a rather confidential matter:-

My friend "Jane" is a new employee of 5 weeks, a Church of England Parish administrator (her role and responsibilities do not include lone working or working with money or working with children or vulnerable people other than a vulnerable person may knock on Parish Office door seeking help) has just been asked by her Parish Safeguarding Officer to provide her details so that they can complete a DBS Enhanced check on her.

Jane says no DBS check, let alone an Enhanced one, was mentioned as a requirement in the job advert or at her interview or in her offer letter or in her contract or in her Terms and conditions or in Staff Handbook and nor had it been mentioned in her first 4 weeks of working. 

Plus Jane says she  had received feedback from Parish HR manager that her references had been excellent in the cover letter which included her offer letter, contract, staff handbook etc

Jane is asking if on the basis of it not being mentioned until 5 weeks into her appointment is she is obliged to agree to the DBS Enhanced Check?  But then what are consequences of her declining (dismissal within probationary period) or accepting and then the DBS check result coming back  and her being dismissed or at best being kept on but her new colleagues having knowledge of things she wouldn't want them to know.

The issue for Jane being that 35 & 36 years ago aged 20 whilst suffering from extreme anorexia she was convicted of shoplifting twice in 6 months and completed 18 months probation.  She has lived a blameless life since including 35 years of excellent employment with references to match.

I'm really shocked and angry for her that she has been placed in this upsetting position by an employer who should have made it clear from the outset/ job advert that they would undertake a DBS Enhanced check.  I suspect she would have not applied for the role as 'her past issues' still upset and embarrass her to this day.

Jane's probationary period is 6 months.  Thankfully she is financially secure but likes the extra "pocket" money but also was, until this week,  really enjoying the job and was doing great at it.  

Thoughts  opinions and advice for what she should do please because I'm at a loss.








 

gt568

I think those offenses will be expired and not show up.

Jane needs to CTFO.

Zinger549

I don't think you have to be directly involved with young/vulnerable people to require a DBS. I did some admin work for a Charity that organises placements for year 10/11 students. I was working from home but still had to do a DBS before I could start.

Undervalued

A probationary period has little meaning in law. If "passing" it entitles her to some addition benefits (e.g a pay rise or more holiday) they must honour that agreement but that is all. Until she has been employed for two years she has very little employment protection and can be dismissed for no reason at all.

Assuming they are legally entitled to an enhanced DBS check they can insist on one. Even if not they can ask for details of any past convictions (unless legally spent) and expect a truthful answer. Refusing to answer an employer's reasonable question is certainly ground for dismissal, not that they actually need any grounds for the reasons I have stated.

I am not sure if any convictions are "spent" for enhanced DBS purposes. Hopefully somebody will clarify.

Yes, it would have been good practice to have asked for this before she was appointed but as far as I can see it doesn't stop them asking now, particularly for the reasons you have stated.

All she can do is be totally open and hope that the history is not considered relevant.

elsien

It will be on here as to whether it shows up or not. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-list-of-offences-that-will-never-be-filtered-from-a-criminal-record-check

However, I would suggest that she is making far more of it than an employer ever would given the length of time that has passed. If she does need to explain it all she needs to say if she was young and very unwell and she’s learned from it.

I can see it might be a bit embarrassing if you see as a fine upstanding pillar of the community, however she still is a fine upstanding member of the community so maybe she needs to consider why it’s still upsetting so many years later?

While not being in her position, it does feel like she is overthinking it. 

The only person who would have knowledge of it is the person doing the checks and anyone else making the decision if it does show up. The information should be securely held in the employment record. it certainly wouldn’t be standard knowledge to all her colleagues. 

JGB1955

There is some guidance at Check if you need to tell someone about your criminal record: What information you need to give - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

LinLui

However, I would suggest that she is making far more of it than an employer ever would given the length of time that has passed. If she does need to explain it all she needs to say if she was young and very unwell and she’s learned from it.

^^^This^^^
I understand that she is still living with the upset of her past, but that is exactly what it is - past. And in the grand scheme of things, she was ill, and made some mistakes. 

I would sugest that actually being able to "come clean" might actually help her to move on. There really isn't anything in this that her employer will be concerend about, and nobody in the world is squeaky clean. By continuing to hide it, she is actually making it the mountain. Once it is no longer her secret, she may well be able to accept it and forgive herself. 

Grumpy_chap

Jane needs to get the DBS check done and then respond if there are any negative factors.
The alternative is to refuse and lose the job, so getting it done and losing the job would be no worse place.
I don't think losing the job will be a factor for petty offences committed many years ago.

The OP even notes that "anyone may knock on the office door seeking assistance" so the rationale for the role requiring the DBS check is clear.  Potentially employment should not have been allowed to commence in advance, but it has, so the office are now normalising the situation.

penners324

Safeguarding is a very important part of a lot of jobs both paid and unpaid.

If the Church of England feel the role now needs a DBS whereas 6 months ago it didn't then so be it.

Only the DBS verifier will see the full report. If anyone else does they are un breach of their Safeguarding duties.

Your friend has nothing to be scared of. 

TELLIT01

She has two options.  Accept the DBS check or lose her job, either by resigning or by being sacked for refusing to allow one to be made.  Refusal would set off all kinds of alarm bells.

Savvy_Sue

I agree that it's all in the past and shouldn't cause any issues, but I can also see that she doesn't want 'everyone' knowing her business.

If following elsien's link above does not reassure her, it could be worth asking who deals with these checks? As I understand it, the completed check goes to the person named, who then shows it to the employer. It shouldn't be passed around: ONLY the person who needs to know should see it. If there's an issue, it might need to be discussed with someone else, but again this should be someone senior, with an understanding of DBS checks.