This is a tough one isn't it Steve? HR can't be seen to be acting 'illegally' as defined by government. But I wonder whether there was anything more they could have done to support him - for example writing to the relevant department in support of his case?

In reply to Anna:

I guess we'll never know, Anna... but it did make me recall something a respected and valued member of our Community suggested on another thread: that “at end of the day [HR is] a tool of management not an employee representative."

Discuss ;)

The Home Office issues a list of documents which new starters must produce to demonstrate their right to work in the UK. Here it is:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/.../employers_right_to_work_checklist_november_2014.pdf


The quote (HR said I was illegal ... ... ) makes it seem as if the HR Department is making unilateral and arbitrary decisions but there is no grey area on this. You have the documents or you don't. If you don't, the employer is breaking the law to employ you and is open to prosecution.

This isn't about HR being a tool of management, it is about all of us being subject to the law. My question would be how he was employed in the first place if he couldn't demonstrate his right to work here.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

This isn't about HR being a tool of management, it is about all of us being subject to the law.

That is true, Elizabeth... even if the law is an ass. From the little we know it would seem the school were very sympathetic... but HR less so. The 'system' failed this man.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

I agree this is an iniquitous situation, but the HR team here were applying the law (belatedly) - there's no implication that they weren't sympathetic (that I can see; I only read the Guardian article). And in a school environment, as well as the usual 'right to work' evidence, this data check is part of the identity record on the SCR - which is key to safeguarding practice. The law failed this man for sure, but I feel sympathy with the people who had to make those decisions.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

www.gov.uk/penalties-for-employing-illegal-workers

However "sympathetic" the school may have been perceived to be, do we think the head or the governors, or whoever is the decision-maker here, would have been willing to risk a 5-year stretch if not for HR preventing their humanitarian action?

If the school was so very sympathetic, why didn't they re-engage him when he got his paperwork through? Or was it those flinty-hearted scrooges in HR who blocked that as well as cruelly turfing him out in the first place?

It was both cowardly and lazy of the school to represent this as HR being the hard cases who weren't sympathetic. Whoever took the decision should have been brave enough to have taken responsibility for it even though it was, in fact, the only decision that the management of the school, not HR, could take.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

"[He] worked at a north London primary school for over 15 years when a routine check on his immigration status revealed he did not have an up-to-date identity document."

We just don't know what (if any) representations the school / HR made on behalf of this man. If 15 years count for something, I would hope they would've made some noise and not simply dismissed him. That's all I'm saying. 

The Home Office have only just approved his documents this week after this all became public.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

My experience of dealing with the Home Office is that there is nothing any employer can say that will soften their approach no matter what as asset the employee is to the country. I have had contact with them on behalf of a number of employees working here on various visas and they have always been completely unbending.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

I know... I *know* you're right, Elizabeth. This issue touches a nerve with me and as I write this I feel my gut turning. I find this all intolerable.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

I agree with you. We seem repeatedly to make stupid decisions about who we want to stay in this country. There are so many stories of kids who came here as refugees but have offers of university places, people who have worked and paid tax for years, and then "computer says no" so out they must go. There seems to be no intelligence or ability to see the overall picture instead of a point scoring system that doesn't necessarily capture the things that really matter. It is tragic. I am just objecting to HR been seen as the bad guy. Again.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

I'm with Elizabeth on this, as she said in her first post how was this not checked when he was first employed this is not a new requirement.

It is never easy having to end someones employment when their visa runs out and after doing a ECS check they have no right to remain, but we have no choice. I have had to do this a couple of times in the last 12 months, however we have taken the staff back on when their visas have come through.

Sharon

In reply to Sharon Lesley:

I'm speculating... but in this particular case...

15 years ago... an interview... application form > born in Barbados but resident in UK since 1961... is it possible that no further questions were asked? I'd be affronted if asked in that context.

"Braithwaite arrived in London with his family when he was nine, when his father moved to work for the Post Office, and he has lived in the UK since. He had always assumed he was British, having attended primary school and secondary school here, and having worked continuously since leaving school. He married in London and has three British children and five grandchildren."

I get where you're all coming from... but really???

In reply to Steve Bridger:

I think what gets me is that this guy wasn't given any benefit of the doubt... it's dismissal. I hope he sues.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

But Steve

HR could not give him the benefit of doubt, in immigration, I am sure he was given some opportunity to get evidence of his right to work. The only thing that can be done is a checking service via the borders agency, and that is only if he had an application ongoing or a reference number, this will give 6 months at a time if eligible.

I cant believe he was just sat down and told to go as this issue was raised in 2016 but he was not dismissed until 2017 - so some conversations must have taken place.

But even so 15 years ago right to work checks should have been done, so an oversight did take place, and he should have been asked for passport and birth cert at that time - to check eligibility all employers had to do this.

So yes someone has made a mistake 15 years ago, but when that mistake becomes know, HR cannot break or change the law

Sharon

In reply to Steve Bridger:

There are 5 potentially legal reasons for terminating employment. One of them is where continuing to employ the person would break a law. Sadly, if Mr Braithwaite was dismissed because it was illegal to employ him, then he isn't going to have a case against the school. The school did the only thing they could legally do.

Having said that, they could have re-employed him as soon as he had his paperwork. We don't know all the facts but I would think that was a choice that was open to the school to make but for some reason they didn't.