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

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

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???

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)