Unfair dismissal: withholding information on job application

Easton v Secretary of State for Home Department

Employee who concealed a previous gross misconduct dismissal on an application form was fairly dismissed.

Background

Mr Easton was a career civil servant who’d worked in various government departments. In 2016 the Home Office terminated his employment for gross misconduct. Later that year he started working for the DWP, and in May 2019 he reapplied for a job in a different part of the Home Office (Border Force).

The job application form included a free-text box for ‘Employment History’ where Mr Easton provided only the years of his employment. This concealed the three-month gap in his history, following his dismissal for gross misconduct from his earlier Home Office role. He did not disclose this gap or his prior dismissal when he was interviewed for the role.

After he’d been appointed, the Border Force discovered Mr Easton’s previous dismissal. After a long investigation, his employment was terminated on the basis that he had been dishonest in his application for the role. His employer concluded that Mr Easton’s omission on the application form was deliberate, and he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

Mr Easton brought several claims against the Home Office, one of which was unfair dismissal. A tribunal held that his dismissal was fair. It 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, arguing that he was being penalised for failing to provide information that had not explicitly been requested.

EAT decision

The appeal was dismissed.

The tribunal had been entitled to find that the employer’s decision to treat Mr Easton’s conduct as grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. A reasonable job applicant would understand that an ‘Employment History’ section requires a full and transparent account, including providing information about any employment gaps.

Mr Easton’s omission was a serious integrity issue. A post within the Border Force carries a particular responsibility, similar to regulated professions such as solicitors, where integrity is a fundamental requirement. The expectation for full disclosure in Mr Easton’s case was not an arbitrary one on the part of his employer but was consistent with broader recruitment practices in regulated and high-trust environments.

Comment

The nature of Mr Easton’s employment no doubt played quite a part in this decision, and it is important to remember that there is no ‘one size fits all’ when it comes to unfair dismissal; each case is decided on its own facts. Also, the wording at the bottom of the application form warning of potential disciplinary proceedings if accurate information was not provided no doubt played a part in the decision. Employers would also be well advised to set out specific questions such as ‘reason for leaving’ so there is no doubt what is being asked.