Freight Dog:
Rjan:
albion:
If nothing else, we can always say you are thorough Rjan.No doubt “thoroughly wrong” is on the tip of everyone’s tongues!
My understanding was that she had never passed whatever check, MoD or something else, in the first place. If that’s the case then that explains why she was asked to go. We have no idea if she was ‘thrown out on her ear’, the actual dismissal procedure is not explained in T&E’s OP.
I can assure you they can rescind your clearance or refuse to re-clear without giving a reason why. In fact it’s unusual to know why they failed you. If you do something once you have a clearance and the clearance is compromised because of your actions, then most firms would have it as a gross dismissal clause in their Ts & Cs.
No idea about police, CRB, DBS or anything else though.
As I say, the employer is only entitled to secrecy when it is a statutory clearance scheme supporting national security or some kind of public interest in general - in this case, it is true you may not be told your reasons for failure. But these schemes are also closely regulated and monitored, and the background checking function is centralised and completely separate from the services or employers that rely on these checks.
In ordinary commercial settings where employers themselves often do a “background check” on employees (and T&E is not clear whether this is the case), the employer cannot dismiss you for secret reasons on secret evidence. There is no legitimate justification for it, and the employer does not stand as a public authority that is permitted to perform such functions in the public interest (and carry the regulatory constraints that go with it).
If the employer themselves has been told by a government agency that a security clearance has been revoked, and the employer themselves have not been given further information, then it may be fair to dismiss the employee simply on that ground - of course the employer cannot give information that they don’t have, but they can give evidence that the revocation of the clearance was on account of a public agency (and not the employer’s own decision).
The CRB and DBS cases also do not generally involve secrecy - a specific reference to evidence would only be withheld from an employee in exceptional circumstances in the opinion of someone other than the employer (e.g. to protect police intelligence sources), and there would be a review mechanism in place if you felt that the situation was completely inexplicable.
How do you know all this?
He’s a Russian spy, obviously! Thanks everyone for your input, keeping my fingers crossed for her but I think it will be a rejection in the end.
