‍

How forthcoming should job applicants be, when providing information about their employment history and any previous dismissals?  The recent case of Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department grapples with this interesting question.  

The facts  

Mr Easton is a career civil servant.  Until 2016, he worked for the Home Office, when his employment was terminated by reason of gross misconduct in June of that year.  He was then unemployed for three months until he secured new employment with the Department for Work and Pensions.  He remained in the employment of the DWP until he applied for a role with Border Force in 2019.  If he was successful in his application, he would effectively find himself working for the Home Office again.

As part of the recruitment process, Mr Easton was required to complete an application form.  The form included a box into which Mr Easton was required to insert details of his employment history.  When completing the box, he referred to his previous service with both the Home Office and the DWP.  However, he only provided details of the years in which he was employed by these organisations, rather than providing the precise dates on which his employment began and ended.  In this way, the 3-month gap in his employment history was not evident, nor was the fact that he had been dismissed for gross misconduct.

After securing the new role with the Home Office, he bumped into a former colleague, who promptly flagged up to Mr Easton's line manager the circumstances of his previous dismissal.  Following an investigation, Mr Easton was disciplined and dismissed for dishonesty in the manner in which he had completed his application form.  He was found to have dishonestly failed to disclose both the period of unemployment and his previous dismissal.  

Mr Easton brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal arguing, amongst other things, that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Right or wrong?

The Manchester Employment Tribunal heard Mr Easton’s case in May 2023.  It is perhaps significant that in cross-examination, Mr Easton conceded that as part of its recruitment process, the Home Office was likely to be interested in periods of unemployment as well as the circumstances surrounding any dismissals.  Having heard all the evidence, the tribunal considered, in detail, the investigatory and disciplinary processes adopted by the Home Office.  It concluded that these processes, along with the ultimate decision to dismiss, fell within the band of reasonable responses open to the employer. As a result, Mr Easton’s claim was unsuccessful.

Mr Easton appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  Relying on previous case law, he argued that the Employment Tribunal had mistakenly failed to take account of the ambiguous nature of the application form and the lack of any guidance as to how it should be completed.  These arguments, which were considered by Deputy Judge Sarah Crowther KC, were ultimately unsuccessful.  Instead, she upheld the Employment Tribunal's decision and Mr Easton’s claim failed once again.

A high degree of honesty required?

The outcome of this case suggests that, given the right circumstances, job applicants may be under a significant obligation to be honest and transparent in the way in which they complete application forms.  The implications for failing to do so could be significant.  That said, this case is also an example of a situation in which it might have been prudent for the employer to provide clearer guidance as to precisely what information it was seeking, so as to minimise the risk of problems of this nature arising in the first place.

If you have any questions about the legality of your recruitment practices, please get in touch.

‍