The recent legislative changes concerning employment rights have created a complex landscape where employers’ intentions to conduct thorough background checks might inadvertently foster discriminatory practices against potential hires. The Employment Rights Bill’s elimination of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal has prompted employers to adopt more rigorous vetting procedures, which now include detailed criminal background checks.
The Nockolds law firm has raised alarms over these preventative measures potentially discriminating against job candidates with police records, whether these records pertain to impending prosecutions, cautions, or non-crime hate incidents. While the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 offers protections for candidates against bias due to spent convictions, the surge in enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks might expose candidates to underlying prejudices.
Joanna Sutton, a principal associate at Nockolds, underscores that the comprehensive nature of these checks could make employers overly cautious, thereby risking discrimination and an uptick in tribunal claims. Employers who discover police records might either rescind job offers or avoid making them altogether, leading many candidates to suspect that the results of these background checks are the reason behind their failed job prospects.
Sutton elaborates on the pickle employers find themselves in as they try to balance their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies with the potential hazards of hiring individuals flagged in enhanced DBS checks. The tension lies in hiring a diverse workforce while managing the risks of workplace harassment or discrimination arising from non-crime hate incidents linked to potential employees.
The advent of day-one unfair dismissal rights certainly presents new obstacles for employers, compelling them to meticulously navigate these risks to prevent instances of discrimination while still fostering an inclusive work culture. Employers must ensure that their practices remain equitable and compliant with legal standards, avoiding any semblance of bias during the vetting process.
To sum it up, this shift towards increased background checks stipulated by expanded employment rights could paradoxically lead to more discriminatory practices against prospective employees with police records. This unintended effect stands to undermine DEI efforts and heighten the likelihood of tribunal claims, urging employers to exercise caution and fairness in their hiring protocols.
