What can dishonesty in the context of an application mean and how should employers deal with it?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently confirmed the decision of the employment tribunal (ET) in the case of Easton against Foreign Ministry of the Interior Ministry (border weapon) and found that an employee was dismissed fairly when it was incorporated into his application form. This was a gross deficiency behavior, and his discharge was in the “group of reasonable answers”.

Case background

Mr. Easton worked for the Interior Ministry from 2002 to 2016. It was dismissed on June 13, 2016 for gross misconduct, which included inappropriate behavior towards women and temperature problems. This led to a subsequent three -month employment gap. He then began working on September 4, 2016 with the Department of Labor and Pensions (DWP).

Mr. Easton later applied for a role in the border weapon (part of the Interior Ministry). As part of the “Employment History” section of the application form, he worked from “2002 – 2016” and the DWP from “2016 to Current” for the Home Office. Mr. Easton has not released his dismissal or employment gap in the application form or in the interview phase. His employment gap and dismissal were hidden by misleading his employment history. The application form contained a check box in which Mr. Easton confirmed that he understood that he was suspended or rejected disciplinary measures when he provided incorrect information or withdrawing relevant details.

Mr. Easton again went to the Ministry of the Interior as part of the border troop. A disciplinary examination began after Mr. Easton’s dismissal came to light. After the examination, he was dismissed for gross deficiency behavior because he had disclosed non -relevant and material information about his earlier discharge and an unemployment period. Mr. Easton unsuccessfully appealed against the decision and then raised a claim from the labor court.

Employment court

The ET decided that Mr. Easton had not been wrongly released. Discharge was fair for the potentially fair reason of misconduct, since it opened not relevant and material information about his application form. The employer had behaved within the group of reasonable answers that a reasonable employer would have achieved under these circumstances, in particular in view of the type of organization, the role of Mr. Easton and misconduct. The ET also decided that the following procedure was “thorough” and “more than reasonable”.

Stack of employment tribunal

The EAT dismissed Mr. Easton’s appeal. The use of years only covered his earlier dismissal and later employment gap. The ET was entitled to recognize that his employer had appropriate reasons to believe that the decision to present information in this way was dishonest.

An appropriate applicant for an appropriate applicant who is faced with an empty box with the “employment history”, understood that the information had to be presented in a way that shows gaps in employment. ET found that Mr. Easton understood that layoffs and unemployment would be relevant and material information for an application in the past three years. Significantly, Mr. Easton confirmed his understanding of his relevance during the cross -question.

The EAT concluded that the ET pursued the right approach to checking the employer’s process and concluded that it was open to the employer to determine that Mr. Easton’s decision to hold back this information was deliberately and dishonest.

Lessons for employers

• Make sure you carry out thorough reviews before employment. Application forms should expressly request the full employment of an applicant, including precise rolling data, and all employment gaps and reasons for leaving previous roles.

• Make sure you check and check the history of employment. An application form should not be seen as a tick box exercise. Employers should check the work history and examine concerns before making recruitment decisions.

• The correct procedure is the key. A fair and thorough examination, a disciplinary and appeal procedure is essential. Employers should take this into account before they decide because the examination is relevant if it is determined whether such a decision falls into the group of reasonable answers. Employers should also ensure that their procedures and decisions are consistent.

Read more:
Applications for applications: the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth