Security worker awarded €4,500 for unfair dismissal

10 Mar 08

A security worker who was fired when his employer discovered he had been given a suspended prison sentence has been awarded €4,500 (£3,400) for unfair dismissal.

Tony Purcell of Carlow, Ireland, was dismissed by Netwatch Ireland after the company’s managing director found online newspaper reports linking him to motoring offences.

Vetting experts said the case underlines the need for best practice in pre-employment screening.

Newspaper articles

Purcell joined the Irish firm, which supplies CCTV monitoring services to homes and businesses, in June 2005. He worked in the command centre as a monitor centre operative and after six months was promoted to supervisor.

Netwatch managing director David Walsh told Ireland’s Employment Appeals Tribunal that the company operated a very stringent recruitment policy and, that if a potential employee had a criminal record, the matter would come up in the recruitment process. He said Purcell had claimed he had a clean record, save for a few minor traffic offences.

“Walsh claimed that if Purcell had mentioned the offences at his interview, he would not have been employed.”

In November 2006, Purcell apparently delayed in giving an audio warning of a security breach at a client’s site, prompting Walsh to run an internet search against his name. This found a number of newspaper articles from February 2005, which said Purcell was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and banned from driving for seven years after his fifth conviction for driving without insurance. The sentence was suspended and Purcell was given a community service order.

Upon this discovery, Walsh and the company’s technical director fired Purcell for gross misconduct. Walsh claimed that if Purcell had mentioned the offences at his interview, he would not have been employed. However, Purcell’s solicitors said his convictions were for regulatory offences, rather than criminal ones.

Breach of trust

Tribunal chair Moya Quinlan said the company had failed to properly research Purcell’s background during the recruitment process, but that his failure to give details of his offences had led to a breach of trust between him and the company.

She held that his conduct had contributed in part to his dismissal but awarded him €4,500.

“Where possible, employers should carry out criminal record and credit checks.”

Brian Fenwick, director, Staffvetting.com

Brian Fenwick, director of Staffvetting.com, a leading screening services firm, told info4security that job applicants should be actively encouraged to disclose damaging information like previous convictions and bad credit records.

“Whilst this might sound detrimental to the applicant it is only by disclosure of the facts that an applicant could hope to minimise the damage,” he said. “Subsequent discovery of this damaging information would clearly raise suspicion about the character of the applicant.”

Fenwick said that where possible, employers should also carry out criminal record and credit checks.

“In the UK criminal records can be obtained on behalf of the applicant (with signed consent), but in Ireland the applicant needs to apply through data processing rules to the Garda.”

He added, “Credit checks are carried out through credit reference agencies and do not effect an applicant’s credit rating.”

Security screening is now a compliance requirement in many sectors of commerce. UKAS accreditted NQA 3000 security screening is based on the British Standard 7858 and, according to Fenwick, is rapidly becoming an international standard.

Postscript :

Want to get the latest security stories delivered straight to your inbox? Then click here to sign up to our free weekly news service!