CRB checks. Advice please.

[phykell]

They haven't got grounds to fire you. If you didn't do the crime then why would you need to declare it? It shouldn't be up to you to prove your innocence, it should be up to them to prove your guilt. They've asked you if it's true, you've denied it and stated there must be some mistake. AFAIC I'd follow it up but that doesn't mean your employer has the right to assume you're a liar. Unfortunately, and I hate to generalise, but HR people tend to be of a certain "ilk" - just an observation I've made over the years.

[Admiral Huddy]

I would seek advice from CAB.

[Admiral Huddy]

The system is bollocks to be honest. My wife and i have to be CRB checked every 3 or 4 years or so, including any adults that potentially stay over night.

Firstly, 3 years is a long time between checks.

Sencondly, are we really going to check everyone that stays over night?

[phykell]

Originally Posted by Kitten

If he's on a probationary period iirc they don't need grounds to fire him.

I meant logistical, practical and moral grounds rather than strictly legal grounds - it's not as though an employer would fire someone without any reason anyway. Also, they'd have to be very careful about how they worded any reason to fire him. If they were, for example, to let it be known to people that he has a record of GBH when he hasn't, they could be held accountable.

Originally Posted by Kitten

I think he needs to speak to the CRB before he goes anywhere else, obviously there are procedures in place to deal with this sort of thing.

Agreed - it's one monumental screw-up though. I'd be livid if an official body was happily telling people, on request, that I had a criminal past.

Originally Posted by Kitten

Actually that's exactly what they are there for - to make sure that the person you are employing hasn't got a criminal record, and if they have, what they have it for. Surely that would form part of any evaluation process that you would put in place if you have people working in positions of trust at your company.

Agreed again but it sounds like they've assumed El is lying and that's just unacceptable. From the admittedly limited information we have, it seems they're arguing that he should have declared it at the interview rather than being concerned about whether it could be just a mistake. The fact is that as an employer, having learned information about an employee that could jeopardise their employment, they should have verified the information with the employee concerned. Giving El the chance to deny the allegation would preclude any issues about him needing to declare a criminal act at the interview stage.

[phykell]

Originally Posted by Kitten

I understand that, but lets face it, they aren't stupid - if he's on probation and they want to fire him they can do - that's the end of it - they won't say it's to do with the check and he would struggle to prove that it is.

Yes, if he's on probation and they want an excuse to sack him, they'll find something. It's unlikely, for sensible employers anyway, to dismiss someone for no decent reason. Hiring someone is an expensive process and that's before you have to start paying them!

Originally Posted by Kitten

Again, it's the police who have said he has a criminal past, the CRB have simply supplied the information given to them by the police.

I just can't get over that - it's really disturbing that the Police could make such a damning mistake about an individual.

Originally Posted by Kitten

For the last point I'm not referring to El's case in particular, just that I can't see how checking whether someone has a criminal record isn't something that would be beneficial to a company, or shouldn't be - which is what Mok seems to be suggesting.

If that's what he is suggesting then I can't agree either. Checks are *absolutely* necessary because there are some really dodgy people out there. As an employer, you have to protect your business for the sake of yourself, your clients and the rest of your employees. Further, it may be mandatory for you to make reasonable investigations into a prospective employee's past for the sake of ISO, legal or insurance requirements.

[Pheebs]

Kittens right here.

When working for the bobby as a civvy my job was (well everything - bar stewards rubbish system) but mainly classifying crimes, allocating them out, ensuring they have been dealt with correctly and then marking up any detected crimes/charges or undetected and filing them. (This is where you would be marked up. If you have been involved in any crime or occurrence reported to the police your name WILL be on their system but have to be sure to be correctly marked up as the relevant person – ie offender, aggrieved, witness, reporter etc.)

During my time there, a new software system was put in place meaning all files (closed and new) had to be transferred over, rechecked, reclassified and filed.

If you could imagine the enormity of the job... well. It was stupid.

People who were full time weren't trained properly on the software and many temp positions opened up… and those who filled them had to be trained via us untrained lot. (I mean – OMG how much of a mess was going to happen here! Any one could see that!)

In the end there were so many hundreds of **** ups being made and then the files being closed (meaning they were almost impossible to dig back out again) that we were in fact going backwards on ourselves than forwards. My manager was _THE_ rubbishness and in the end I created a manual by myself - in whatever time I could - using every flipping resource I could research and get my hands on - to at least attempt to sort out some of the mess that was being made. I also set up training courses too and eventually it was implemented after my perseverance - although despite not being my job I had to train half the police staff in my area on the system.

Now I'm not saying it was all down to me that the system started to get back on track and people were being trained properly, but if I hadn't of done what I had there would be possibly hundreds upon hundreds of people out their wrongly filed. I am also not saying I didn’t make muck ups – I *know* I did – how couldn’t you when you’ve had bare minimum training!! But at least I tried to rectify where I was going wrong and sort something out.

Honestly I have never worked in such a mess and the whole system and arrogance of the people I worked with eventually made me have a break down.

It's a shame really because despite working my butt off for that place (and the whole of the BCU) and getting thanks from the chief and all... the people around me just kicked me down and continued to **** up with files because they didn't like the fact a younger person who had been there 10 - 20 years less than them had the initiative and drive to figure out what we were *all* doing wrong and put it right as opposed to moaning about it.

Can you tell I'm bitter!!!??? For you El - I am so so sorry this kind of thing has had to happen but if I'm completely frank it really doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

You don't happen to live in the Hampshire BCU do you?! If you do then the above is most probably why there has been a huge HUGE muck up. As said all cases had to be transferred across and that was… around 3 – 4 years ago… so if you are on their system somewhere someone may have mucked up your name and filed it wrong.

Wouldn’t it be crazy after all of this if you did reside in the Hampshire area (or were atleast involved in an occurrence/crime in that area) and it was because of this is screwed up.

Dear God I hope it wasn’t me!! I know I made muck ups with minor details (albeit very VERY rarely) but I should imagine like crazy I never mucked up classifying someone as charged of not!! That’s just enormously dumb.

Erk.

Hope it gets sorted asap xx

[phykell]

Originally Posted by Pheebs

...I never mucked up classifying someone as charged of not!! That’s just enormously dumb.

Just imagine the possible potential ramifications of such potentially easy mistakes - it doesn't bear thinking about and that's why, as I said earlier, I'm so cynical about the idea of a database accurately and reliably representing a UK citizen as an abstract entity. Truly scary stuff but not hard to believe unfortunately.

[Pheebs]

Yup.

It's awful.

Seriously - the amount of slopey shouldered people I worked with was amazing. Some cases I was told I had to file them as "non occurrence" or "disputes" when they were quite clearly burglarys and all sorts. And it's frustrating knowing that most of the reasons for them to file them as a non crime was to keep the figures down!! I specifically recall having to file a case on child abuse which ended up as a non-charge. That... broke my heart. Followed by being told that someone having their face smashed and teeth knocked out (broken jaw) was not GBH but ABH.... it just made me so so so angry.

Don't get me wrong - police officers are *immense* and 95% of them work their butts off and do everything they can *in their powers* to help out the public. Sadly though due to so many faults (lack of staff, resources, money, time, government pressures and power crazed egits who reside above them and have slopey shoulders) they sometimes struggle to do what they would given half the chance.

I love the police in so many ways but equally find it frustrating. I would - for sure - never do the above civvy work again. EVER. At least as a bobby you have some powers to argue for and against cases but for me I had no powers and when an inspector tells you "file it or I will"... and then you refuse and they file it and you can't change it. Well. That just left me in shreds.

[ElRazur]

I got the info from HR and it was caution for causing GBH about 8 years ago or so. Again I haven't been cautioned for such offence, nor have I been involved in one.

Anyway, I have made a query on this and am awaiting the first forms to come through the post. The lady from the CRB assured it should be relatively straightened out, but tbqfh I will believe this when it is done. In the mean time I have to work with this hanging over my head.

The head of the HR seems to come across like I am a criminal and asking me to think to that time of alleged incident. I'm thinking wtf? There is nothing to think of, I have done nothing like that. Anyway, I will keep you guys updated. Thanks for all your input.

[phykell]

Originally Posted by ElRazur

The head of the HR seems to come across like I am a criminal and asking me to think to that time of alleged incident. I'm thinking wtf? There is nothing to think of, I have done nothing like that.

And there it is. It's the fact that they maintain an attitude towards you that you might have a criminal past despite you denying it. They should assume the criminal record is a mistake until *proven* otherwise and they should treat you accordingly - i.e. not placing you under any overt suspicion.

I'm not going to tell you what you should do but if it were me, unless the job was perfect in every other way, I'd tell them to shove it.