Job offer withdrawn after CRB/DBS check showed issues already disclosed during application.(20 Posts)
Your relative has to have received a paper copy of his CRB through the post that will show him exactly what the school has received. He should check there is nothing else on there that he hasn't disclosed. It is so rare for any other information to be provided to the school that in the 8 years of doing my job I have never known it and I have had a number of people with convictions get jobs, (usually stupid childhood/youth offences - though one guy was done for egging an MP and was very proud of it!) and these have not resulted in job offers being revoked.
If they have a policy then I would contact the Head by phone in the first instance and ask for a meeting to discuss why they didn't follow their policy and ask for their reasoning. It may well depend what they did to get themselves arrested, if they assaulted a minor for example that might be a reason.
Hang on - it doesn't sound to me like they changed their mind, it sounds like they said they wouldn't open the envelope until the job was offered, alongside other checks.
Therefore it may not be an issue with the DBS, it may be with the offence.
Either way I'd arrange a meeting or at least a telephone call as if he wants to work in this area he needs to know if it is even viable for him.
Thanks everyone... Appreciate all the information you've given me.
Redcliff is correct. You get a copy of your disclosure but sometimes with an enhanced disclosure there is a separate letter to the employer with non-conviction information that the police consider to be relevant. This can happen if, for example, you are the subject of an ongoing investigation but the police don't want to alert you to that fact, hence the reason it doesn't appear on your copy of the disclosure and the employer is not allowed to discuss it with you. As Redcliff says it is pretty rare but it can't be ruled out.
With some enhanced checks extra information is provided only to the employer in a separate letter but this is so rare its unlikely that this happened in this case. Given that he provided the information in a sperate letter it could be that the info didn't get to the right people so he wasn't sifted out when he should have been.
Thanks everyone. I will tell him to check whether he should have received a copy. I am certain he would have put everything on there, he just wouldn't have seen the point of not disclosing since he knew they would run the enhanced check.
I am sure they just came to my house - one to me and one to work (in my case the work places being schools and a high security prison)
A copy automatically gets sent to the home address.
No, he should have received a copy of the same info that they received. Enhanced checks include cautions, spent and childhood stuff - could he have forgotten to mention something that showed up?
If I was him I'd ask for a meeting and a discussion in a very polite letter, pointing out their own policy and that he had disclosed everything. They probably wont offer him the job but if he's extremely reasonable there's always a chance.
How did you get them Hulababy?
I have got copies of my enhanced CRBs. It should be possible,
Thanks AuntieStella - you're probably right about the left hand/right hand thing. I don't think they will change their minds either, but he wants them to do the right thing and at least admit they didn't follow their own policy. Although from what prh47bridge said, discussing with him would have been somewhat fruitless if the check turned up something else, since they wouldn't have been able to tell him what it was anyway. That's useful for him to know, I guess, if only to argue their policy needs rethinking.
You can't run a CRB on yourself.
I've also never seen an enhanced disclosure that gave any information other than the crime that was committed and the date etc. So I'm not sure what could be recorded that your family member wouldn't know about.
Was your family member completely honest and upfront about what they were charged with and exactly when it was? If there was anything that could have looked like a lie, of untruth, that could have changed the employers mind.
A discussion is usually only worthwhile if there is a chance of employment still going ahead, and in this case it appears that there was not. There isn't a way to make them stick to that policy, as frustrating as that is, so it's probably worth letting this go.
The likeliest explanatn is left hand / right hand within the company. So the interviewer may have had one view of fhe implications, but the person responsible for the 'vetting' (or the protection policies which mean checks are required in the firs place) has taken another, and the latter's view has prevailed.
It is a pity they did not follow their own policy of discussing issues revealed, but as it seems there is a firm decision then it is highly unlikely the withdrawal would be reversed.
And if they're not allowed to tell him what came up on the check, then surely their policy of discussing it with the candidate before withdrawing the offer is a little pointless anyway? because they can't tell him what they found on the check, to give him the chance to confirm whether the information is correct or not.
That is true prh47bridge, but I guess there's no way of him getting his own copy of the enhanced CRB to ever find out? You can't do the check on yourself, can you?
As this was an enhanced disclosure it is possible the company were given some information that wasn't on your relative's copy. It may be their decision is based on that rather than the conviction. That would also explain why they didn't discuss it with your relative - if there is additional information the employer must not disclose it to the candidate.
Of course, if there was no additional information I agree with Redcliff.
Yes, the not following policy is what is getting to him really (and me). Of course they are at liberty to decline him based on the conviction, and even he was shocked to be offered the job, he had assumed it was very unlikely that he would even get an interview once he mentioned the issue. He is hoping to meet with the board of governors/headmaster and at least get them to explain their reasons for not following their own policy and make sure they don't do the same to anyone else, they're on half term at the moment. I just wondered if there was any legal advice/precedent/information I could point him to to back up his argument. Thanks for your help.
It seems odd that they didn't follow their own policy re discussing the conviction but they are within their rights to withdrawer the offer and there isn't a law/GB that means they can't. It might be worth a polite e-mail to the Head of HR pointing out the facts and asking them to reconsider(given that your family member had disclosed the info and they still took them through the interview or at least explain why they have not followed their policy?
Asking this on behalf of a family member, who was arrested a couple of years ago. They applied for a job recently which required an enhanced disclosure, and disclosed the conviction at the application stage along with an explanation, as they knew it would show up on the DRB/DBS checks anyway. I believe they provided all the information relating to the arrest in a sealed envelope, and were told that it would be opened and reviewed before the company would make any job offer to them. They went through the interview process and were subsequently offered the job subject to checks/references. However, when the CRB/DBS check came back showing the same info as had already been disclosed during the application process, the job offer was withdrawn.
The company who offered the job have a policy which specifically states that in the event of any information showing on CRB/DBS checks, they will discuss with the candidate before withdrawing the offer - which did not happen.
Obviously the real issue here is that they shouldn't have got themselves arrested in the first place - they already know that. I'm just wondering if there's any kind of law/governing body I can point them to to help them out and possibly get the company to reconsider or at least stop them doing the same to someone else in future.
Join the discussion
Please login first.