Dismissed - HELP!!

[Drumtochty]

After having a wild youth, and stackingup a few criminal convictions, 12 years ago i turned over a new leaf and went on the straight and narrow.

I have had 12 years of steady and blameless employment and after being made redundant recently, my dreams came true and i landed a job as a postman.

Having worked for the last month, this morning I was given a letter of dismissal for an unsatisfactory criminal records check?

Under the offenders rehabilitation act my convictions are spent - what is happening here?

[norbert]

did you declare those convictions ? , I think ? the onus might be on RM to prove it was YOU that was being dishonest .

it's interesting as there is a tiny minority of staff employed who are not exactly whiter than white . I wouldn't take it too personally as it seems to be panic from on high due to negative PR . RM has a very , very regimented style of " management " by dicktat . Depends if RM made it clear that spent convictions WERE to be disclosed and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act didn't count .

RM are known for one thing and if nothing else they are consistent - that's cocking things up !

Secondly are the old convictions for dishonesty ? Seek legal advice , a half hour interview is free , apparently .

[fmrPOSTIE]

hi mate, can you please say whether you declared all criminal convictions? I doubt whether RM has an opt-out on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Which means that if your convictions are spent, you don't have to declare them. Usually 5yrs has to pass. I would let your rep know and seek legal advice.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Applying For Jobs

Applicants with a criminal record who are asked on an application form or at an interview whether they have any previous convictions can answer 'no' if the convictions are spent and the job applied for is not excepted from the Act. Under the terms of the Act, a spent conviction shall not be proper grounds for not employing - or for sacking - someone. (If on the other hand, job applicants do not disclose unspent convictions, if asked to do so, they may be found out, dismissed on the grounds of having deceived the employer - and possibly prosecuted.)

The Act does not provide any means of enforcing a person's right not to be refused employment (or entry into a profession) on the grounds of a spent conviction. If, however, an employee can prove that they have been dismissed for a spent conviction and they have been in employment a year or more, they may be able to claim unfair dismissal under employment legislation.

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htm

[fmrPOSTIE]

Does anybody have the initial wording from the recruitment stage re Criminal Convictions?, as said above, spent convictions do not need to be declared unless an Enhanced CRB is req'd or a body is exempt from this?

Needs clarification.

[NWpostie]

How did they find out ? as far as I am aware, only those such as Police, Prison Service, HMCR, MI5 and MI6, Special Branch, the Armed Forces and the CRB has access to such information which as far as i am aware is protected from disclosure due to the Data Protection Act, Royal Mail does not come under that, they can send a request for information but as far as I am aware there is no requirment to tell them anything, unless relevent such as Dishonesty, theft, Burglary, Fraud , Violence and Murder.

It si quote worrying as Council have abused the Regulation of Investigatory Powers for petty purposes, could RM have access to such powers and with regards to Drumtochty what prompted them to look into her records in the First place ?

[fmrPOSTIE]

How did they find out ? as far as I am aware, only those such as Police, Prison Service, HMCR, MI5 and MI6, Special Branch, the Armed Forces and the CRB has access to such information which as far as i am aware is protected from disclosure due to the Data Protection Act, Royal Mail does not come under that, they can send a request for information but as far as I am aware there is no requirment to tell them anything, unless relevent such as Dishonesty, theft, Burglary, Fraud , Violence and Murder.

It si quote worrying as Council have abused the Regulation of Investigatory Powers for petty purposes, could RM have access to such powers and with regards to Drumtochty what prompted them to look into her records in the First place ?

This is not true NWpostie. Royal Mail is now allowed to vet new recruits via a CRB check. Obviously new recruits are told this at application stage and need to declare "unspent" convictions, being those that are less than 5yrs old. If you have convictions over 5yrs you shouldnt normally have to disclose these.

Both of my employers since leaving Royal Mail have asked these details and are legally allowed to under the Rehabilitations of Offenders Act 1974. But i work in the defence industry - its almost standard in my area of work.

I believe RM have been doing this for around 18 months. But the OP still needs to give more details...

[NWpostie]

OK seems things have changed a lot since, I am surprised the RM need to put you through CRB clearances, could this be control freakery ? the need to keep conrol of every single person in RM, ironic considering that they were allowing Casuals access to RM buildings and deliver Mail I even had to sign the Offical Secrets Act when I joined RM !!! as well as giving normal references from previous employers.

[fmrPOSTIE]

OK seems things have changed a lot since, I am surprised the RM need to put you through CRB clearances, could this be control freakery ? the need to keep conrol of every single person in RM, ironic considering that they were allowing Casuals access to RM buildings and deliver Mail I even had to sign the Offical Secrets Act when I joined RM !!! as well as giving normal references from previous employers.

Yeah i had to sign the Official Secrets Act, a blue bit of paper when i started (2004). Do they still do that?

RM didnt take up any of my references though!

[norbert]

OK seems things have changed a lot since, I am surprised the RM need to put you through CRB clearances, could this be control freakery ? the need to keep conrol of every single person in RM, ironic considering that they were allowing Casuals access to RM buildings and deliver Mail I even had to sign the Offical Secrets Act when I joined RM !!! as well as giving normal references from previous employers.

with RM's style which is slash and burn , poor QofS , initially high profits - they have to "manage" PR or keep a lid on poor PR , if there's too many stories in the papers or on Hellmail , RM tend to be reactive rather than pro - active or just plain knee-jerk .

The last time this started happening was after a shafting on C4's Despatches - when RM started doing summary dismissals out of panic - quell surprise , when really they should have done it properly via CofC .

The Union from the PEC downwards managed to get people back , as RM hadn't followed it's own procedure - but unfortunately someone who is 1 . On probation 2 . Only been in 1 month is easy to get rid of

[Pat Ostman]

After having a wild youth, and stackingup a few criminal convictions, 12 years ago i turned over a new leaf and went on the straight and narrow.

I have had 12 years of steady and blameless employment and after being made redundant recently, my dreams came true and i landed a job as a postman.

Having worked for the last month, this morning I was given a letter of dismissal for an unsatisfactory criminal records check?

Under the offenders rehabilitation act my convictions are spent - what is happening here?

shoddy treatment by rm again

good luck and FIGHT it. If you lose, what's the point in the act and people turning over a new leaf?

[dvbuk55]

There was an article in the paper recently about the Essex Police Force having 45 serving officers with criminal records but were still allowed to serve as it was considered they weren't likely to be a risk despite the fact that one had been dealing in drugs! Having said that each employer has the right to terminate employment if they consider the employee unfit on a CRB check and I would imagine that there is a clause in the contract to that effect.

[Lounge Lizard]

There was an article in the paper recently about the Essex Police Force having 45 serving officers with criminal records but were still allowed to serve as it was considered they weren't likely to be a risk despite the fact that one had been dealing in drugs! Having said that each employer has the right to terminate employment if they consider the employee unfit on a CRB check and I would imagine that there is a clause in the contract to that effect.

Essex Police were probably relieved to find that only 45 of their officers had criminal records.
It's common knowledge that police are bigger crooks than the rest of us, their motto being 'do as we say not as we do'

[fmrPOSTIE]

Well we've offered some advice to the OP, strange that we haven't heard from them since their original post. I even PM'd the OP.

[norbert]

Well we've offered some advice to the OP, strange that we haven't heard from them since their original post. I even PM'd the OP.

maybe the OP doesn't want to make it too obvious , especially if looking for another job - people lurking on the internet - the Google spiders might have found the post - might be sick to death of RM - Aren't we all ?