I would like to know what the process is for jobs in the financial industry in the UK. Specifically the following -
2-If you do report a spent convictin or if it is discovered through the standard check performed by the CRB, or any other agency, can an employer reject you for a job?
Thank you
Do you think it would be compulsory to offer the job to you?
I guess it depends on the job. Certainly I've never been asked to.
They can reject you for any reason they like or for no reason, as long as it doesn't infringe one of the discrimination laws.
Not for any job I'm aware of.
"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
As "no reason" is a valid response, how could anyone show that one of the discrimination laws had been infringed?
See
and also run a search on "Statue of limitations" which explains when convictions no longer have to be mentioned.
Daytona
Thank you for your reply and the link. Based on this and resources on the web there seems to be conflicting info. Some sites states anyone working in the financial sector or for the FSA must declare all convictions - including spent. I guess this is similar to an enhanced check by the CRB. Other sites seems to state that only Senior managers and directors in banking and financial services need to state spent convictions - I assume this means people on the board and not a director position within a firm, correct? Also, I have seen resources stating that the CRB asks for al spent and unspent conviction and that both shoe up on a disclosure - is this true? Is this to mean that an employer will get a report back of all convictions and must use their "judgment" to make sure spent convictions are not used against a prospective employee? If this were true it would seem to defeat the purpose of spent convictions as an employer may not hire you for "another" reason. Finally, I have asked before but not received an answer - hoping you can help. Would a disclosure only report convictions in the UK? If you have a conviction from another country - say US and are a US citizen working in the UK would any of this show up on a disclosure and do the rules for spent convictions change at all? Thanks again for your help.
Daytona wrote:
By using common sense.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Explain...! Suppose six people are interviewed for a job, and number 3 is a black woman. She doesn't get the job, but "no reason" is given. Did the employer discriminate against her on the basis of race (illegal), or of sex (also illegal), or not give her the job just because they preferred someone else?
You haven't provided any evidence of discrimination.
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Exactly! Even if there *were* discrimination, there would never be any *evidence*!
How can you say that?
"Peter Saxton" wrote
Because the employer gives "no reason"...
How do you think that you could prove discrimination, unless the employer actually said: "You didn't get the job because you are black / a woman ..."?
It doesn't have to be as obvious as that. Look at the tribunal cases.
Let's just put it this way. If two people claimed that their rejection was based on discrimination (and were identically qualified for the job), which would stand the better chance of success, a white man or a black woman? And I have seen cases where "ethnic" people have successfully appealed against failure to obtain promotion on the grounds of "discrimination", where a white person would have stood no chance.
I can't see any solution to the problem. Certainly "positive discrimination" - requiring a certain percentage of the workforce to be from ethnic minorities - is not the answer. Look at what has happened to South African cricket.
Nope.
The link to the FSA handbook should give you all the information you require.
Daytona
"BrianW" wrote
Are you saying that the tribunal's themselves actually discriminate on racial/sex grounds?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required