In the UK applicants for police recruitment have to be at least 18 years old. There is no upper age limit but the normal retirement age is 60. Eligibility requirements also cover such matters as nationality, criminal record, tattoos, financial status, physical fitness, health and eyesight. In Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policia…
Recruitment firm ‘Matching Models’ has recently come under fire for posting a job advertisement requesting that applicants are ‘attractive women’ only and have even specified what bra size the successful applicant should be. The advertisement in question specified that applicants for a PA position should have “a classic look, brown long hair with b-c cup”. It went…
Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla concerned the question of the enforceability of a clause seeking to recoup recruitment costs from an employee, and clearly establishes that an Employment Tribunal is entitled to consider whether or not such a clause is unenforceable as a penalty. It arose in the case of Ms Bryla, a care worker…
A new law (the Equality Act 2010 s.60) will soon make it unlawful for a prospective employer to ask a job applicant about his or her health before offering work. In fact this goes wider than just “employers” in the technical sense – it covers applications for a position as a partner, as a contract…
Bristol City Council has caused a furore by banning white people from applying for a traineeship because it wants to boost staff diversity. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph the two-year training opportunity is only open to people from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the “normal recruitment process was not rectifying” under-representation.…
The Advertising Standards Authority has banned a radio advert for Reed Recruitment which implied that all Germans are “tyrranical”. The ad features a man speaking to his boss who, according to a report in the Guardian, responded in German in “loud, staccato bursts evocative of the speeches of Adolf Hitler”. The voice was described by…
CRB checks, DBS checks or ECRCs, whatever they are called, criminal record checks have become an integral part of many employment and recruitment procedures.
The object is laudable: to protect children and vulnerable people from coming into contact from those who are unsuitable to be among them. However, a decision of the Supreme Court at the end of July has exposed an interesting aspect of enhanced checks that many people did not realise and which raises interesting questions concerning our justice system and how mere involvement in a criminal process without any finding of wrongdoing can still result in a disclosure which can call into question the suitability of the individual concerned.
The case concerned someone known as “AR” (he cannot be named for legal reasons, a qualified teacher who was found not guilty of rape in 2011 after a Crown Court trial.
Although he was found not guilty, details of the allegation and the verdict were included in his criminal records certificate. Following hearings on 21 November 2017 and 23 April 2018, Lord Carnwath delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court. The respondents were the Chief Constable of Manchester Police and the Home Secretary.
In a report into the operation of the criminal records legislation, its author Sunita Mason pointed out that there was:
“…a degree of dissatisfaction with a system that has evolved with the laudable aim of protecting vulnerable people but is now viewed by some as intrusive and an unnecessary bar to employment. There is also concern that some people may be treated as ‘guilty until proven innocent'”
As a result of her report there were amendments to the legislation including a right to request a review.
I write further to the deadline for Gender Pay Gap Reporting expiring last week. Much has been made in the media of that deadline being the day by which qualifying employers (i.e. those with 250 or more employees) have to submit the percentage difference in pay between their male and female staff.
The initial results? Nearly 80% of those employers who have responded (some haven’t) have reported higher pay levels to men than women.
So, that means that those employers are discriminating against women, right? Well, not necessarily. But the figures are there in black and white – surely, every employer with a higher pay towards males is inherently sexist? Not really.
The reality is that the figures are suggestive only and there are many legitimate reasons why pay may be skewed either way, whether towards males or females. Let’s take a look and bust some myths about the Gender Pay Gap Reporting.
So, here we are: January. Christmas has come and gone and the warm lights of December have been replaced with the wind and rain of January. Sigh. But anyway, how was your Christmas? I hope it was a time of rest and good health.
My Christmas? As usual, it was filled with random discussions around the Christmas dinner table including, as ever, conversations about weird and wonderful Employment Law cases. In particular, some of my family members were shocked to hear that a non-disabled employee can suffer disability-related discrimination. One even suggested that I make the subject into a blog when I returned to work and, me being me, I couldn’t resist such an invitation…
So what am I talking about? Well, this was the case of Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey which concerned a female police officer who applied for a job in another police force. The police officer had a progressive hearing condition with tinnitus which, going forward, would continue to worsen. When originally recruited for her current police force, she failed the meet the usual criteria for police recruitment due to her low level of hearing but, after the police force arranged a practical functionality test, she was passed for duty and assigned for front-line duties. There were no concerns over her performance during her time in the role.
The issues started in 2013 when she applied to transfer to a new police force. As was standard, she attended a pre-employment health assessment. The medical practitioner concluded that, whilst her hearing level was technically just outside the usual police force parameters, she performed her current role with no difficulties and a practical functionality test was recommended. However, the new police force refused to follow this recommendation and, instead, declined her request to transfer due to her hearing below the recognised standard and, rather importantly, commented that it would not be appropriate to accept a candidate outside of the recognised standard of hearing because of the risk of increasing the pool of police officers placed on restricted duties.
You’d think this would be a weird question but I actually get asked this question on a fairly regular basis. Thankfully, I mostly get asked it by employees rather than employers but, in saying that, I can recall two employers (at a past law firm) that asked me this exact question.
The answer? Quite simply: it depends. It depends on the circumstances but, theoretically, yes, an employee can be disciplined for job hunting. In practice, however, it would be a rare occasion where an employer could safely do so.
To explore the dividing line, let’s look at three examples.