In the context of job application, what does dishonest mean and how should employers deal with it?
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently upheld the Employment Tribunal (ET) decision of Easton v. Secretary of State of the Interior (Border Force) and found that the employee was fairly dismissed when he failed to include details of relevant and material employment history in his application form. This constituted serious misconduct, and his sack was found within the “reasonable response band.”
Case background
Mr. Easton worked in the Ministry of the Interior from 2002 to 2016. On June 13, 2016, he was fired for serious misconduct involving misconduct against women and temper issues. This led to the employment gap in the following three months. He then began working with the Department’s Work and Pension (DWP) on September 4, 2016.
Mr Easton later applied for the role of the Border Force (part of the Ministry of the Interior). According to the “History of Employment” section of the application form, he introduced himself to work for the Ministry of the Interior from “2002-2016” and from “2016 to Current”. Mr Easton did not disclose his dismissal or employment gap during the application form or interview phase. His employment gap and sacking were covered up by misleading his employment history. The application form contains a checkbox and Mr Easton confirms that he knows he may be disciplined or that he may be disciplined if he provides false information or refuses relevant details.
Mr Easton rejoined the Ministry of the Interior as part of the border force. Easton began a disciplinary investigation after he was fired. After the investigation, he was fired for serious misconduct because he failed to disclose relevant and significant information about his early dismissal and concealed period of unemployment. Mr Easton was unsuccessful in the decision and then made a request from the hiring court.
Employment Tribunal
ET believes that Mr Easton has not been dismissed unfairly. The dismissal is fair due to the possible justification for misconduct, as he failed to disclose relevant and material information on his application form. In this case, the employer performed well in a reasonable response, especially given the nature of the organization, Mr. Easton’s role and misconduct. ET also believes that the procedures followed are “thorough” and “more reasonable”.
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Diet dismissed Mr Easton’s appeal. Using just a few years of employment history to cover up his previous sack and subsequent employment gap. ET has the right to find that his employer has reasonable reasons to believe that the decision to present information in this way is dishonest.
A reasonable job seeker facing a blank box of “employment history” can understand that information must be provided in a way that reveals any employment gap. ET found Mr Easton learned that sacking and unemployment over the past three years will be important and material information for job applications. It is worth noting that Mr Easton confirmed his understanding of the relevance during cross-examination.
EAT believes that ET took the right approach to reviewing the employer’s process and concluded that the employer was open to discover that Mr Easton’s decision to retain the information was intentional and dishonest.
Employer’s courses
- Make sure you have a thorough pre-employment check. The job application form should clearly require the applicant’s complete employment history, including the exact role date, and require any employment gaps and reasons for leaving the previous role.
- Make sure you review and verify your employment history. Application forms should not be considered as tick box exercises. Employers should verify employment history and investigate any issues before making a recruitment decision.
- The right process is key. A fair and thorough investigation, discipline and appeal process are crucial. Employers should keep this in mind before deciding to fire, as investigations will be important when determining whether such decisions belong to bands that are reasonably responded. Employers should also ensure that their procedures and decisions are consistent.
Read more:
Work Application: Truth, all truth, only truth
