In UK employment law, transparency during the hiring process is more than a best practice - it’s a legal expectation. A recent case, Mr. P Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force), sheds light on the legal consequences that can follow when a job applicant omits critical information from their application.
Case summary
Mr. Easton was dismissed from the Home Office for gross misconduct in 2016. After a stint with the Department for Work and Pensions, he applied for a new role with the Border Force in 2019. In his application, he listed his employment history only by year, leaving out both the fact of his dismissal and a three-month gap.
Despite ticking a declaration that warned of disciplinary action for false or misleading information, Mr. Easton was offered the job and began working in early 2020. When the Border Force later uncovered his previous dismissal, an investigation followed, resulting in his termination for gross misconduct.
Legal findings: fairness in dismissal
The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal fair, citing Mr. Easton’s omission as a deliberate act of dishonesty. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld this decision, stating the job application was clear in its request for full employment history. Mr. Easton, they concluded, should have disclosed both the dismissal and the employment gap.
Legal principles highlighted
Honesty is paramount: Applicants are obligated to provide full and truthful information. Omitting reasons for leaving previous roles or unexplained gaps can be viewed as misconduct - especially when forms explicitly request these details.
Fair process matters: Employers must conduct a reasonable and thorough investigation before dismissing an employee. In this case, the investigation was found to meet legal standards.
Justified dismissal: Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, misconduct is a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The tribunal concluded that Mr. Easton’s omissions met this threshold.
Employer takeaways: reducing legal risk
This case offers practical lessons for employers seeking to strengthen their recruitment and disciplinary processes:
Design clear application forms: Request specific information on employment history, reasons for leaving, and gaps to reduce ambiguity and set clear expectations.
Verify before you hire: Don’t rely solely on self-reported information. Use references and background checks to validate employment history and credentials.
Use conditional offers: Make job offers contingent on reference checks and verification of application details. This allows for withdrawal if inconsistencies emerge.
Follow fair disciplinary procedures: Ensure consistency, thorough investigations, and opportunities for employees to respond before reaching disciplinary conclusions.
The Easton case underscores a key truth: trust and transparency are essential on both sides of the employment relationship. Employers must foster clear and lawful hiring processes, while applicants have a duty to be forthright. By doing so, both parties can uphold fairness, legal compliance, and integrity in the workplace.
This article was created with insights from Lex HR - your always-on HR legal assistant. Lex HR helps HR professionals navigate complex employment law with confidence, providing real-time, reliable advice tailored to your needs. Try it free today and see how much easier compliance can be.
