Discriminated for a declared unspent conviction

[mobyme]

We don't *need* to know the details of the crime and conviction. No matter what it was, its not discrimination is it? Its completely an employers decision whether they want to employ crooks or not.

This thread is about as idiotic as someone saying they're being 'discriminated against' for not having a degree and applying for a grad position.

I reckon this post could cost you a great deal more than £500 if the OP was minded to take it further.

 

the crime I committed was a breach of the peace five years ago, technically the crime is only spent 5 years after the actual court date, not the date of crime.

I eventually got to court, after 5 months of commiting the crime and was fined £150.

The conviction will be spend in july, but honesty is a very important trait, I follow. Unfortunately declaring this, resulted in the above. I wasnt in jail lol! as some on here, think i'm a hardend criminal lol!

it was a domestic incident with an ex boyfriend, I have not had any further dealings with the law

So it was a lovers tiff.

And there was me thinking you were the master mind behind Brinks Matt.

Earl

 

[Bruvver]

......it was a domestic incident with an ex boyfriend, I have not had any further dealings with the law

Thanks, we all knew it was a breach of the peace, I just wondered what an apparently sensible person might have done that had the might of the righteous slagging them off.
Thought it might have been peeing on a War memorial or worse

Taking a chance here, but I have been there, suspect many others have too.
I know where you were coming from, not that you didn't get the job, just the way you didn't get the job.
Apart from all the pontificating, the advice given was probably the best outcome.

 

[Consistency]

I am currently fighting a financial institution employer. I filled out my application on-line, then was successful at telephone interview, then offered a position after attending a four hour assessment centre.
The applications asked if I had any un-spent conviction, which I declared this on the application, a simple breach of the peace five years ago, and outline the fine I received. - - Most important part—at the telephone interview stage I was not asked if I had any unspent conviction --- then was offered the job.
After this the vetting team advised they could not offer me a position based on my conviction, yet these were declared from day one, if this had been asked at the telephone interview stage, then the whole process would have been halted. Is this a legal requirement to mention this at telephone interview, if at a later date it is discriminated upon.

I was offered the position starting the 16th January 2012 and had to go through an appeal process due to my criminal convictions, which halted the whole process. They have not admitted they had failed me within the recruitment stage and offered me a goodwill gesture of £500, they now ask candidates at telephone interview stage if they have any unspent convictions. As All banks ask this and it’s usually the first question which is asked.
I am willing to take this the whole way and would appreciate if anyone can clarify if I have a case, as I was not asked at telephone interview stage if I had unspent convictions, then offered a job, then put through a three month appeal process for something I had declared from day one.. Any help would be greatly appreciated

£500 for naff all, and that is without even getting the job. Severance pay in the beginning, they were blessed not to have you.

And people wonder why businesses are reluctant to employ.

Their bigest stuidity was giving an inch as this gave room to try and take more.

 

[roydmoorian]

the crime I committed was a breach of the peace five years ago, technically the crime is only spent 5 years after the actual court date, not the date of crime.

I eventually got to court, after 5 months of commiting the crime and was fined £150.

The conviction will be spend in july, but honesty is a very important trait, I follow. Unfortunately declaring this, resulted in the above. I wasnt in jail lol! as some on here, think i'm a hardend criminal lol!

it was a domestic incident with an ex boyfriend, I have not had any further dealings with the law

Claire, I do think that your prospective employer is making a good offer but I am disappointed with them for even taking such an incident into account.

There is at one negative poster to this thread who has a one man band company and is a serial offender incurring CCJ's and who is still operating a similar business and offering work to unsuspecting newbies.

I would suggest that his actions are far more serious than yours

 

[Banned]

Well lesson learn't I think. Commit a minor crime, pay £150 fine (consider it an investment). Then apply for jobs and claim £500 every time when you are refused because of said offence. Nice little business and £350 up on the very first interview.

Didn't think criminals were allowed to profit from their crimes?

 

[Bruvver]

Makes you wonder about the efficiency of the Banks ?

They gave her a start date........?
Then withdrew the job offer.

 

[Consistency]

This is what is peeing me off about this thread.....
Op has a conviction, op declared conviction, was then offered job and is gutted because it has been withdrawn because of said conviction.
Can she take them to the cleaners? I doubt it, but naturally she is upset. Okay maybe as she has this conviction she should just give up all together and claim benefits? No but she wants to support herself and contribute to society, what a terrible person she must be.
Then there is all the sanctimonious BS from the holier than thou mob. If she was a serial offender then fair enough but it's one breach of the piece


For the record Connie I have a few convictions to my name, does that mean we can no longer share a joke on here?

Not at all, it is the attitude of taking a company all the way to see what compensation she can get. This was likely to be an employee error and indeed honesty should be the best policy and this should be credited that she is trying to move on rather than trying to cover it up.

It was an error and she was given a start date and given £500. I would say that is well over enough compensation. When someone thinks they now have a job and start to make changes etc just to be thrown back out then I can imagine it is angering. It was the attitude of wanting to take them to the cleaners etc and at the end of the day it is the company who pays and not the employee who made such an error.

I personally think there may be more to this than meets the eye.

 

I would be so interested to know who this is, as all this holier than thou is a bit irritating and the hypocrisy of some people is amazing

You do mean normal?

Earl

 

[Banned]

Don't you bloody start, did you actually read the thread

Yea I did, and thought I would just add a little of my "wisdom"

Here's a bit more.... basically she shouldn't have been offered the job in the first place as it went against the companies policy. A mistake was made and then rectified. Nothing more, nothing less. At worse the op lost a few hours of her time pursing the job. If she had turned down another position in favour of this one then I can see there would be a good case for compensation. But she didn't.

There, if only I had been around at the start of this thread it could have been concluded 57 posts ago.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

if this happened to me I would be VERY peed off. I would also take the money and raise a glass to them

 

if this happened to me I would be VERY peed off. I would also take the money and raise a glass to them

Bloody cheapskate.

Earl

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Bloody cheapskate.

Earl

Ok then I would raise a glass of 1981 chateau lafite

 

[rachel_HRSolutions]

Unfortunately you cannot claim discriminationa as conviction status is not a protected charahcteristic, and owing to the fact that the job role was at a financial institution the safeguarding process in respect of vetting individuals will be higher than standard practice.

Technically, you were not employed unless you formally accepted an offer of employment however, regardless of employment status legislation allows employers to dismiss on the grounds of an unspent conviction.

I very much doubt you would receive anywhere near £500.00 pursuing the matter via legal channels.

 

[Richie N]

Take them all the way to where and for what? What exactly are you hoping to get? You appear to have given a few hours of your time, they have offered to compensate this to the tune of £500. Was there any mention of convictions on any application forms? I am at a loss as to why you feel you are entitled to money for failing to meet the criteria. £500 seems enough IMO

I agree with Welshguy.

An employer can withdraw their offer at any time, so to offer you £500 as a goodwill gesture I would say take it and move on.

 

[Dan@Printwell]

Ok then I would raise a glass of 1981 chateau lafite

That’s older than me, are you saving it for a special occasion?

 

[TheKingPatch]

Thought I would chime in with my 2 cents as I found myself in a similar situation. If at any time during the recruitment process, the prospective employer does not specify that the job offer is subject to a satisfactory background check, and you are subsequently dismissed, then there is grounds for complaint. However as there had probably been no paperwork involved at this point (I'm going out on a limb and assuming here ), then unfortunately I would imagine there is little you could do about it.

 

[Steve Sellers]

Technically, you were not employed unless you formally accepted an offer of employment however, regardless of employment status legislation allows employers to dismiss on the grounds of an unspent conviction.

Which legislation?

 

[TheKingPatch]

Which legislation?

^ yeah, I'm curious about that one as well. (I'm honestly curious, as this comment seems like I'm a minion popping up behind a bully and saying exactly what he said )

 

[rachel_HRSolutions]

section 98 1 b (SOSR) with reliance on the exceptons order covered under ROA 1974/Exceptions Order 1975 -

I was using laymans terms per se when referrring to legislation as we al know the prescribed grounds, however, I have relied on SOSR coupled with FSA regulatory code and ROA legislation in private practice as a defence to similar claims and was successful.

 

[Steve Sellers]

But "unspent conviction" isn't specifically named, per se, and as such employers don't have carte blanche to dismiss an employee for having an unspent conviction.

Regardless of employment status, a substantial reason in practice would only be in a situation of an employee or potential employee not declaring the unspent conviction - or is that what you meant?

 

[OldWelshGuy]

If they were asked and lied, it matters not WHAt the lie was as a lie is a lie is a lie so then dismiss them for providing false information.

In this case though it was just a case of the process being in the wrong order. a pre-condition for me would have been to have weeded out anyone ineligible

 

If they were asked and lied, it matters not WHAt the lie was as a lie is a lie is a lie

Hardly many are in the case of MP's administration errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Classification

 

[Steve Sellers]

If they were asked and lied, it matters not WHAt the lie was as a lie is a lie is a lie so then dismiss them for providing false information.

In this case though it was just a case of the process being in the wrong order. a pre-condition for me would have been to have weeded out anyone ineligible

That's my point. Some other substantial reason covers non declaration when asked, it doesn't cover dismissing an employee simply for having an unspent conviction. To do so would go against the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act and public policy.

 

[Big Pete]

Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act and public policy.

what a pathetic stupid place its becoming .. Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act .. and people wonder why the World is naffed

 

[OldWelshGuy]

what a pathetic stupid place its becoming .. Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act .. and people wonder why the World is naffed

Sorry Pete, but as much as I am hard nosed I have to agree that we need stuff like the ROOAct otherwise we simply fail in one of the key areas which is to rehabilitate once the punishment has been served.

The act is there to protect everyone, and most of all to make society a better place. Now this may seem odd coming from me seeing as i really am staunch 'nail them up' in my beliefs. But I also believe we need to show an equal amount of compassion with an aim to rehabilitate. BUT (lots of butts) if they mess up, they go back to jail. Everyone deserves a second chance, and everyone needs a chance to change their ways.

We must ensure that rehabilitating criminals are helped and not hindered, as they really can become decent members of society, if they have the desire and are given the opportunity.

 

[Big Pete]

Sorry Pete, but as much as I am hard nosed I have to agree that we need stuff like the ROOAct otherwise we simply fail in one of the key areas which is to rehabilitate once the punishment has been served.

The act is there to protect everyone, and most of all to make society a better place.

We must ensure that rehabilitating criminals are helped and not hindered

Well i disagree for a starters . They never get any punishment the justice system is a joke ..
The act is not there for everyone its for the classic UK way of helping the lazy and bad members of the public again at the expense of the good ones.. it does not make society any better it just in the normal fashion equates to , do a crime and get rewarded ..

Why must we ensure they are helped when the Country has millions of good HONEST people who are kicked in the teeth at every chance because they are just to nice and decent ...

So its yet another stupid made up garbage act , to keep people in jobs at Government level and reward the bad element ..

My opinion anyways ..

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Judging by what you have written, I take it you don't have the first idea of what the act is about, so on that belief, I see there is little point in debating it with you.

It always makes me smile how on an internet forum, people are prepared to rip into and rant about something, without actually knowing what it is they are ranting about and raging against.

 

[Big Pete]

Judging by what you have written, I take it you don't have the first idea of what the act is about, so on that belief, I see there is little point in debating it with you.

It always makes me smile how on an internet forum, people are prepared to rip into and rant about something, without actually knowing what it is they are ranting about and raging against.

If its Government then its bound to be rubbish and badly ran and for the benefit of all the wasters in society . thats enough for me .. anything with act in it is a red flag

How does it work enlighten me , explain it and maybe you could convert me ?

 

[Steve Sellers]

Big Pete. With respect there has to be something in place to give offenders the opportunity to get back into society and live a normal life - that's not to say I believe the current system works.

The old Victorian prison system was a punitive one, with no account of what happens when offenders leave prison. You only have to look at america to realise that simply throwing them in prison with no chance of a 'normal' place in society afterwards actually increases reoffending rates.

The purpose of the Act is not to protect lazy people etc, but to protect the public by reducing reoffending.

Look at at this way. If you are 18, maybe a bit stupid and you do something daft like steal a car, get drunk in public etc. Lets say you are then 40 and that is still on your record and prevents you from getting a job - if you can't get a job it is a fact you are more likely to go back into a life of crime. I accept this is a somewhat primitive analogy but at it's heart that is the purpose of rehabilitation and the Act.

Systems based purely on punishment simply do not work, stick is fine but there must be carrot also. And most people deserve a second chance, the more serious crimes do no become spent and certain crimes will always mean and offender is barred from certain jobs and professions.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

I have to agree with Steve, Punishment is worthless without some form of rehabilitation, if we can rehabilitate then we have less crime to punish. Those that don't wish to be rehabilitated are not really impacted on under the act, as they will simply go back to crime and not fit into society.