• Replies 37 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 8632 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

"HR said I was illegal because I didn't have a biometric card..."

Steve Bridger

I was following the story of Michael Braithwaite today - the man living in the UK for 56 years who lost his school job over immigration papers.

He is one of an emerging group of people who were born in Commonwealth countries and arrived in the UK as children who have discovered half a century later that they have serious and hard to fix immigration problems.

Amelia Gentleman has been doing a fine job shining a light on these stories at the Guardian. 

I can't help but think this is putting a strain on those who work in HR at schools and local authorities. It reminds me a little of the testing our integrity discussion we've had here in the past.

The relevant bits from the Guardian piece:

"The personnel department got in touch to tell him that without a biometric card he could not continue to be employed. The 66-year-old lost his full-time job in 2017 after the local authority ruled he needed to submit documentary proof that he had the right to live in the UK. He has been trying for two years without success to get the Home Office to acknowledge that he is in Britain legally.

"Braithwaite was distraught at losing his job. “I had a good rapport with the children. The head said I was an asset to the school, but the HR department said I was illegal because I didn’t have a biometric card."

I hope he manages to to put his life back together again.

Parents
  • 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 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.
  • in reply to Elizabeth Divver
    PS All of the above is from my head. The rest of me would like to break into Lunar House and scream at them that they are destroying people’s lives. But my head knows Home Office staff are only following government policy so I suppose that just leaves us with writing to our MPs.
Reply Children
  • in reply to Steve Bridger

    This is shameful.

    Steve, I am sorry that I keep hammering away at this point but why is HR being portrayed as the bad guy? This is shooting the messenger and we should insist on the blame being put where it belongs.

  • in reply to Elizabeth Divver
    I completely agree. As Authorising Officer for my organisation, which employs around 120 people with a "restricted" right to work, I have had to dismiss more than once when we have no evidence ofor that right. I do not take this lightly but do everything possible to find some way of obtaining the evidence, including asking the Business help desk for advice (nearly always a waste of time as they simply quote the regulations which I am already aware of) or carrying out an ECS check. Unfortunately if the response comes back indicating no evidence or no right to work, ignoring that simply puts our licence in jeopardy and therefore the ongoing right to live and work of our sponsored workers. We cannot suspend,as that is still employment. We can reengage (but not reinstate) when the right to work is verified.

    The biggest problem and most unfortunate scenario is where an individual like this case has lived here a long time, has no means of demonstrating right to work but was not subject to the check in previous years so was legally employed up to the point that he was legally required to demonstrate right to work and couldn't.

    It's distasteful and makes me ashamed of my country.
  • in reply to Helen

    The biggest problem and most unfortunate scenario is where an individual like this case has lived here a long time, has no means of demonstrating right to work but was not subject to the check in previous years so was legally employed up to the point that he was legally required to demonstrate right to work and couldn't.

    Thank you, Helen. I do think that this is the scenario that is so disturbing me. I am hopeful that the Govt will see that this is 'catching out' people never intended to be the 'targets' (excuse the messy choice of words)... but I won't hold my breath.

    I would hope that Home Office staff are questioning certain decisions with their superiors, too... but they most likely have quotas and targets to fulfil. Grrr...

    ps Your post was your 100th! Thank you, Helen :)

  • in reply to Steve Bridger
    Yes, I have been following with interest - I hope some common sense prevails but given this falls close on the heels of the debacle of threatening to deport EEA nationals who currently have full rights, due to over-enthusiastic adherence to rules, I remain cynical.

    One of the problems is the massively under-resourced staff and the complexities of immigration rules, the many different circumstances people find themselves in and the rigidity of applying rules (and indeed understanding them). Temps are being taken on and given 4 days training before being let loose to make decisions that will affect people's entire lives. I am right now dealing with a refused asylum application where the individual, spouse and child must leave the country and can't even appeal the decision until they have left. And the individual has received 2 different letters in the same envelope, to 2 different addresses (previous and current) with contradictory advice advising of the need to attend, in person, in an entirely different town, on date and time "TBC"....