Crosswords2 mins ago
Was The Criteria Met To Be Entitled To Do A Crb Pre April 2012?
So my husband is an electrician and his ex employer wanted to do an enhanced CRB check as he would have been working in a college during the summer holidays. This was in April 2012.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladydyer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think we've done this, ladydyer.
The criteria for an enhanced CRB check before the DAB scheme ewas introduced was very much the same as it is now - that the post had to involve regular contact with children or vulnerable adults (or had to be involved with the judiciary, the legal profession or some positions in the financial world). The problem was that it was not properly enforced and employers had CRB checks done simply to enquire about their prospective employees.
As I said in my responses to your other question I believe your husband's position did not qualify for such a check then and would certainly be denied under the new arrangements. Lots of people work in places where children are present but that alone does not meet the criteria for a CRB (or DAB) check.
The criteria for an enhanced CRB check before the DAB scheme ewas introduced was very much the same as it is now - that the post had to involve regular contact with children or vulnerable adults (or had to be involved with the judiciary, the legal profession or some positions in the financial world). The problem was that it was not properly enforced and employers had CRB checks done simply to enquire about their prospective employees.
As I said in my responses to your other question I believe your husband's position did not qualify for such a check then and would certainly be denied under the new arrangements. Lots of people work in places where children are present but that alone does not meet the criteria for a CRB (or DAB) check.
And I meant to add that although he may not have been eligible for such a check I don't think you will be successful in arguing this point when dealing with the other matter. Once a check has been made, it's made. It cannot be "unmade". I think you have a stronger argument along the lines we discussed earlier.
The rules haven't really changed about who could/can require CRB/DBS checks for their employees; they've simply between clarified under the new system which has recently been introduced.
CRB/DBS checks could/can only be called for when the relevant person would be working with, or in close contact with, young/vulnerable people on a regular basis. [I'm ignoring jobs within the administration of justice, etc, as they clearly aren't relevant here]. If there were no such people on the college site at the time that your husband would have been working there, then no CRB check could be carried out. However if, say, the college premises were being used for a summer school for young people at that time then, clearly, the employer would have had the right to call for a CRB check.
Employers can sometimes be put in a difficult position by inflexible education authorities who state they won't give a contract for anyone to work in their schools or colleges unless all employees have been through CRB/DBS checks, even though the contract relates to a period when no young people will be present. It's easy to see why employers would simply go along with such a requirement, even though it's unjust and unlawful.
CRB/DBS checks could/can only be called for when the relevant person would be working with, or in close contact with, young/vulnerable people on a regular basis. [I'm ignoring jobs within the administration of justice, etc, as they clearly aren't relevant here]. If there were no such people on the college site at the time that your husband would have been working there, then no CRB check could be carried out. However if, say, the college premises were being used for a summer school for young people at that time then, clearly, the employer would have had the right to call for a CRB check.
Employers can sometimes be put in a difficult position by inflexible education authorities who state they won't give a contract for anyone to work in their schools or colleges unless all employees have been through CRB/DBS checks, even though the contract relates to a period when no young people will be present. It's easy to see why employers would simply go along with such a requirement, even though it's unjust and unlawful.
NJ's post wasn't there when I started typing but I think that we're largely agreed. Many employers (such as Royal Mail) required CRB checks on all of their potential staff (irrespective of the role that they'd be undertaking) despite the fact that such checks couldn't lawfully be made. As NJ states, the rules weren't properly enforced.
New Judge, i'm sorry if iv frustrated you but i'm not the best at understanding things and need it to be straight in my head for me to feel at ease.
Its the definition of regular contact that is throwing me.
The point i am trying to make is that the content in my husbands disclosure doesn't stop him from working with children ect and there was no need for the CRB check in the first place not to mention that he was sent to this college and a nursery 7 times, 4 months after his ex employer received his disclosure.
I don't know, maybe i'm over thinking it but i need to prove that his CRB is being used as an excuse to cover up the real reason he was laid off.
Thanks for the info, its much appreciated.
Its the definition of regular contact that is throwing me.
The point i am trying to make is that the content in my husbands disclosure doesn't stop him from working with children ect and there was no need for the CRB check in the first place not to mention that he was sent to this college and a nursery 7 times, 4 months after his ex employer received his disclosure.
I don't know, maybe i'm over thinking it but i need to prove that his CRB is being used as an excuse to cover up the real reason he was laid off.
Thanks for the info, its much appreciated.
I can't see how a CRB check was anything to do with him being laid off.The 'real' reason is almost certainly that there was not enough work to keep him on.
What is the full story? even if he refused to get a CRB check there is no way that you could 'prove' that the refusal was the reason he was laid off.
What is the full story? even if he refused to get a CRB check there is no way that you could 'prove' that the refusal was the reason he was laid off.
Reading your reply I am even more certain that his CRB check had nothing to do with his being laid off. You say he got the check and after it worked for 4 months in the collage and was then laid off?
That proves to me the CRB check had nothing to do with the lay off, not that it was the reason for it as you say you want to 'prove'.
That proves to me the CRB check had nothing to do with the lay off, not that it was the reason for it as you say you want to 'prove'.
Ok I don't think iv been very clear and it is a very long story.
My husband was being bullied by the director of the company and at one point he was called into a meeting which he decided to record on his phone because of the bullying. It has been put into a transcript and the tribunal have allowed it. You hear the director shout, swear, threaten him with his job, take his van off him and tell him that he is not allowed to be picked up or dropped off from work by any other employee in any of his vans making it hard for him to get to work. You hear the director say that my husband is allowed to leave whenever he wants to and that there are going to be some big changes.
My husband is not the only employee that was treated like this.
4 weeks later he was laid off allegedly because of no work.
The company took on agency staff 2 days after laying him off and also still had agency staff working for him.
After 4 weeks, my husband requested redundancy and also stated that he didn't feel he could return to work anyway because of the treatment.
The response was that they were refusing his request and would review it again after the 13 week lay off period. We were told that this was an unlawful response and because they hadn't acknowledged his grievances my husband resigned.
It was only then that they invited him to a grievance hearing and this is where the director started to say that he had to lay my husband off because the work he did have, my husband couldn't do because he didn't have a clear CRB.
They received his disclosure in April 2012 and they are saying that they couldn't send him to specific jobs because of his disclosure hence the layoff which was in November 2012 yet in June 2012 & August 2012 they sent him to the college in question and a nursery which totally contradicts what they are saying.
The CRB was never an issue until they said it was. There was no refusal of CRB, his boss never told him it was an issue and it is not the reason he was laid off. I want to prove that what they are saying is a lie but in using his CRB as the reason for layoff, show that this is also unfair.
My husband was being bullied by the director of the company and at one point he was called into a meeting which he decided to record on his phone because of the bullying. It has been put into a transcript and the tribunal have allowed it. You hear the director shout, swear, threaten him with his job, take his van off him and tell him that he is not allowed to be picked up or dropped off from work by any other employee in any of his vans making it hard for him to get to work. You hear the director say that my husband is allowed to leave whenever he wants to and that there are going to be some big changes.
My husband is not the only employee that was treated like this.
4 weeks later he was laid off allegedly because of no work.
The company took on agency staff 2 days after laying him off and also still had agency staff working for him.
After 4 weeks, my husband requested redundancy and also stated that he didn't feel he could return to work anyway because of the treatment.
The response was that they were refusing his request and would review it again after the 13 week lay off period. We were told that this was an unlawful response and because they hadn't acknowledged his grievances my husband resigned.
It was only then that they invited him to a grievance hearing and this is where the director started to say that he had to lay my husband off because the work he did have, my husband couldn't do because he didn't have a clear CRB.
They received his disclosure in April 2012 and they are saying that they couldn't send him to specific jobs because of his disclosure hence the layoff which was in November 2012 yet in June 2012 & August 2012 they sent him to the college in question and a nursery which totally contradicts what they are saying.
The CRB was never an issue until they said it was. There was no refusal of CRB, his boss never told him it was an issue and it is not the reason he was laid off. I want to prove that what they are saying is a lie but in using his CRB as the reason for layoff, show that this is also unfair.
what I don't understand is why they are alleging anything about the CRB at all. Did it show something on his record (and he would know, the person the CRB is about is sent a copy of the document)? I still don't think the CRB - clear or not - has anything to do with being laid off. Laid off indicates there isn't enough work.
That is the point, there was plenty of work hence why they had agency workers and took 2 more agency electricians on 2 days after they laid him off.
They are saying that they laid him off because the work they did have, My husband couldn't do due to being given a community order in 2009.
My husbands conviction does not stop him from working in colleges etc and sending him to work on a college and a nursery 4 months after receiving his disclosure, proves that they know this too.
They laid him off to try and push him into leaving the company and the evidence we have of the months leading up to layoff proves this.
They are saying that they laid him off because the work they did have, My husband couldn't do due to being given a community order in 2009.
My husbands conviction does not stop him from working in colleges etc and sending him to work on a college and a nursery 4 months after receiving his disclosure, proves that they know this too.
They laid him off to try and push him into leaving the company and the evidence we have of the months leading up to layoff proves this.
-- answer removed --
I think that is the blunt truth but the employer knew about the conviction as soon as it had happened as he gave my husband a character reference for court.
The conviction was because someone got in his face and he pushed them away.
The employer has known my husband all his life and knows he is no threat to anyone.
I think they wanted rid of my husband but didn't want to make him redundant because the payment would have been a large sum of money due to him working for the company for a very long time and didn't want to pay it so they tried to manipulate into leaving on his own terms.
The conviction was because someone got in his face and he pushed them away.
The employer has known my husband all his life and knows he is no threat to anyone.
I think they wanted rid of my husband but didn't want to make him redundant because the payment would have been a large sum of money due to him working for the company for a very long time and didn't want to pay it so they tried to manipulate into leaving on his own terms.
I don’t really have much more to add, ladydyer, except that I think you should concentrate on the issue, which I see as this:
Was your husband laid off because of lack of work (in which case redundancy payments may be applicable) or was he dismissed for some other reason (in which case they may not)?
The legality of the CRB check is not an issue. Whether it was requested in accordance with the rules or not is not material. It was provided and now cannot be “unprovided”. It exists. In fact, if anything, it strengthens your case because you can show quite clearly that your husband continued to be employed even after it was issued and he continued to be sent to work at the college despite the employer knowing what it contained.
Good luck !!!
Was your husband laid off because of lack of work (in which case redundancy payments may be applicable) or was he dismissed for some other reason (in which case they may not)?
The legality of the CRB check is not an issue. Whether it was requested in accordance with the rules or not is not material. It was provided and now cannot be “unprovided”. It exists. In fact, if anything, it strengthens your case because you can show quite clearly that your husband continued to be employed even after it was issued and he continued to be sent to work at the college despite the employer knowing what it contained.
Good luck !!!
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.