common assault charge

[boardy]

Had a scuffle in a pub,going to court on a common assault charge,can royal mail sack me legally ?.Have been told by HR they would take a dim view !!.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Possibly, it would depend on the circumstances. I take it you have informed your boss, Royal Mail will be told anyway as we are a "reportable" occupation.

In essence, if you have been upfront and told the bosses and been frank and honest then your chances of staying are better.

At the opposite end, if you were in Uniform, thereby they can use the bringing RM into disrepute, drunk and have tried to keep it quiet in the hope that the bosses won't find out, then you will need a really good Area Rep to help you.

My advice is to contact the ADR as soon as possible, explain fully the situation, including what you have told (or not told) the managers and be guided by them. They have training in this sort of thing.

[jetblack]

Royal Mail will be told anyway as we are a "reportable" occupation.

Not disputing this TBT - but its the first time I've heard of it. What exactly does it mean, a "reportable occupation" ? Any criminal charge against you while working in certain occupations has to be automatically relayed to your employer ?

Seems a little bit over the top for a postman to be honest. What bearing upon the man doing his job has it that he has been in a bit of a brawl on Saturday night ? If the employer should be informed at all surely it should only be when the court has reached a decision (guilty). I'd argue that as a postman, RM would only (possibly) have the right to know if it involved perhaps some kind of a fraud. Or perhaps a drink driving conviction, if you are a driver.


What about boardy's right to a private life - and to be able to make the odd mistake in private without it threatening his livelihood ?

Its like bloody 1984 working for this company sometimes

[General Mannerheim]

it stems back to when the company was recognised as a government institution and the job entailed a high level of security and responsibility, now that you could get a trained chimp to do most of the crap we do these days (who would probably have a better union) it's rather redundant but it seems that MI5 or the rozzers still likes to place on certain company's a requirement that all matters of criminal or unrest are reported to the relevant company's, you know so they can sack you for being a very naughty boy or girl.

I think any challenge under the right to a private life over a brawl in a pub would be stretching it a bit.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Sorry I used the wrong term, the official one was "notifiable occupation"

006/2006: notifiable occupations scheme - revised guidance for police forces https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ice-forces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now this has been replaced by the "The Notifiable Occupations Scheme has been replaced by the police led Common Law Police Disclosure." which doesn't have a list of notifiable occupations anymore, but I would think that the Police would be guided somewhat by the previous list https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ce_0_4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jetblack]

I think any challenge under the right to a private life over a brawl in a pub would be stretching it a bit.

Well, when you put it like that, yes.

However, the right to privacy is enshrined under the 1998 Human Rights Act. The right is conditional (as they always are) and has to strike a fair balance between the competing interests of society at large ie. :-


....any limitation (to the right) must be:

in accordance with law;
necessary and proportionate; and
for one or more of the following legitimate aims:
the interests of national security;
the interests of public safety or the economic well-being of the country;
the prevention of disorder or crime;
the protection of health or morals; or
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Most of those don't apply in this case. In fact, none of those limitations apply.

It could very easily be argued (by the CWU)

I'll not even go into the European Convention on Human Rights.


Anyhow boardy - next time, try to turn the other cheek mate .

[jetblack]

Sorry I used the wrong term, the official one was "notifiable occupation"

006/2006: notifiable occupations scheme - revised guidance for police forces https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ice-forces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now this has been replaced by the "The Notifiable Occupations Scheme has been replaced by the police led Common Law Police Disclosure." which doesn't have a list of notifiable occupations anymore, but I would think that the Police would be guided somewhat by the previous list https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ce_0_4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the new scheme proportionate?
Yes. The scheme strikes an appropriate balance between public protection and the rights of the
individual.
The scheme is compatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 19
98, which requires that
personal information should only be shared with employers and professional bodies where it is
necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim, such as the prevention and detection of crime.

Thanks for links TBT - you posted as I was typing previous post. Interesting stuff - but I reckon there is no way in Gods green earth that it is justifiable that RM should be notified whereupon boardy has been convicted of, let alone charged with, common assault. Such an action would be completely disproportionate, even on the terms set out in the CLDP guidance ie. by their own measure.

[rehabron]

actions outside of employment
Criminal actions outside employment should not be treated as automatic reasons for formal notification under this policy or contemplation of dismissal. Employees should not be dismissed solely because a criminal charge against them is pending or because they are absent through having been remanded in custody

Above exert taken from Conduct Policy Guide

[rubberbond]

Sorry I used the wrong term, the official one was "notifiable occupation"

006/2006: notifiable occupations scheme - revised guidance for police forces https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ice-forces" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now this has been replaced by the "The Notifiable Occupations Scheme has been replaced by the police led Common Law Police Disclosure." which doesn't have a list of notifiable occupations anymore, but I would think that the Police would be guided somewhat by the previous list https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ce_0_4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hang on a minute, what possible reason have the police got to go telling your employer. It's up to you,surely, okay if it's a serious offence, if you get held in custody ,then they might need to know ,but common assault covers things like spitting , being drenched by a car driven into a puddle. Anyway,who are they going to inform, especially on a Saturday night? There is no central number to call, plus they will be too busy. Our friend here may be a bit handy with his fists ,but as long as he isn't thumping customers ,or his colleagues (even managers,though God knows some of them need a slap),it's nothing to do with them,tell them yourself by all means ,but I cannot see the police doing so,or being interested in your occupation, other than statistical reasons.