Get in touch 0117 325 0526
Get in touch 0117 325 0526
Facts: The employee, Mr Easton, was a civil servant and worked in several government departments before joining the Home Office in 2002. In 2016 the Home Office dismissed him for gross misconduct. Later that year (after a three month gap) he found a new job at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
In May 2019, Mr Easton applied for a job in a different part of the Home Office (Border Force). When filling out his application, he listed his past jobs but only included the years he worked, not the full dates. This made it seem like he moved straight from the Home Office to the DWP, when in reality there was a three-month gap. He also left out the fact that the Home Office had dismissed him for gross misconduct.
Mr Easton started his new job with Border Force in January 2020. But soon after this he was recognised by former manager who reported his previous dismissal to senior management. After a (lengthy) investigation, the Home Office found that Mr Easton had been dishonest in his application and dismissed him in November 2020.
Mr Easton brought several tribunal claims against the Home Office, one of which was unfair dismissal. (He had the required two years’ service as his employment with the civil service was treated as continuous).
Tribunal decision
The Tribunal held that his dismissal was fair. The employer had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Easton had been dishonest in his application by omitting relevant information and his dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The Tribunal placed particular weight on the fact that Mr Easton ticked a box at the end of his application confirming: ‘I understand my application may be rejected or I may be subject to disciplinary action if I’ve given false information or withheld relevant details’.
Mr Easton appealed. He argued that he had not been dishonest as the application form did not mention the need to include the reasons for leaving previous employment, nor did it ask for specific dates (I.e. day, month, year) of employment or for any gaps in employment history to be explained. He also said that in recent years candidates had become less specific when filling out employment history details and he provided evidence of other application forms that had been completed in a similar way to his.
EAT decision
The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision. A reasonable job applicant would understand that an ‘Employment History’ section requires a full and transparent account, including providing information about any employment gaps. No specific instruction was required and Mr Easton had been dishonest in not providing this information (particularly given that he had ticked to confirm that he had not withheld relevant details). This omission was a serious integrity issue – particularly given the nature of his employer where honesty is essential (similar to regulated professions such as solicitors).
Implications:
It is currently rare for unfair dismissal claims to involve employees lying on job applications, as usually the employee is dismissed before reaching the required two years’ service. However, it will likely become more frequent once the Employment Rights Bill comes into effect and employees have day one unfair dismissal rights (although employers should still be able to make use of a ‘light touch’ procedure in the ‘Initial Period of Employment’).
This is a helpful decision for employers and highlights job applicants’ responsibility to be honest. That said, Mr Easton had a higher responsibility due to the sensitive nature of his role. In a less critical job, dismissal for an omission (without clear instructions requiring this information) may not be fair.
Given this, we recommend making it crystal clear in the application form exactly what you information you need. For example, spell out that the applicant needs to provide their full employment history, including any gaps and reasons for leaving previous roles. (Or, if not, at least make sure to ask this at interview). Also include a declaration, similar to that inserted by the Home Office, in which applicants confirm they understand that providing false or incomplete information can result in disciplinary action and dismissal.
5.0/5