Border officer found to be fairly dismissed following dishonesty on application form

In the case of Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force), the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) addressed issues of employment application transparency and the obligations of applicants to disclose relevant information.

Dismissal

Mr Easton, a career civil servant, had worked for various government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Home Office. In 2016, while serving as a chief immigration officer, he was dismissed by the Home Office for gross misconduct. Following this dismissal, Mr Easton secured a position with the DWP after a three-month period of unemployment.

Gap in employment not disclosed

In May 2019, Mr Easton applied for a role with the Border Force, a division of the Home Office. On his application form, he provided his employment history using only years (for example 2002–2016 for the Home Office and 2016 onwards for the DWP). By writing his employment history in this way, he concealed the three-month gap between his Home Office dismissal and his subsequent DWP employment. He also did not disclose his prior dismissal for gross misconduct.

Previous dismissal comes to light

After starting his role with the Border Force in January 2020, he encountered one of his former line managers from the Home Office, who alerted his new line manager to the fact that his previous employment had been terminated on grounds of gross misconduct. This information led to a disciplinary investigation, during which it was concluded that Mr Easton had intentionally withheld relevant information during the recruitment process. Consequently, in November 2020, he was dismissed for gross misconduct related to dishonesty in his application. Mr Easton appealed the decision but the appeal was dismissed in January 2021.

Employment tribunal (ET) proceedings

Mr Easton challenged his dismissal by submitting claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation, age and disability discrimination, and detriment due to making a protected disclosure. During the proceedings, he withdrew the victimisation and protected disclosure claims, and later, the age discrimination claim. The ET ultimately dismissed all remaining claims, concluding that the Border Force had acted within the range of reasonable responses by terminating his employment for dishonesty.

Appeal to the EAT

Mr Easton then appealed to the EAT. He argued that the application form lacked explicit instructions regarding the disclosure of employment gaps, or reasons for leaving previous positions. He submitted that completion of the form is ‘at the discretion of the candidate’, that the form’s ambiguity led to an unintentional omission and that the ET failed to adequately consider this fact.

The EAT examined whether the ET had properly considered if a reasonable applicant would have understood the need to disclose such information, even in the absence of explicit instructions. The EAT referenced the principles established in BHS v Burchell, which outline the criteria for determining the fairness of a dismissal based on misconduct.

EAT’s decision

The EAT upheld the original ET’s decision, affirming that the Border Force’s actions were reasonable. The EAT concluded that:

• Reasonable grounds: the Border Force had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Easton’s presentation of his employment history was intended to obscure his previous dismissal and subsequent unemployment period.
• Applicant’s understanding: a reasonable applicant would recognise that an empty ‘employment history’ section requires a comprehensive account, including any employment gaps or reasons for leaving previous roles.
• Investigation and conclusion: the Border Force conducted a thorough investigation and reasonably concluded that Mr Easton’s omissions were deliberate and dishonest.

The EAT emphasised that even in the absence of explicit instructions on the application form, applicants bear the responsibility of providing complete and truthful information. The decision highlights the importance of transparency in the recruitment process and upholds the principle that omissions, especially those that conceal relevant facts, can constitute grounds for dismissal due to dishonesty.

Implications for applicants

This case highlights the critical importance of honesty and full disclosure in job applications. Applicants should:

• Provide comprehensive employment histories: include specific dates (months and years) of employment to accurately reflect any gaps.
• Disclose reasons for leaving previous positions: even if not explicitly requested, it is advisable to provide this information, especially if the circumstances might be relevant to the prospective employer.
• Be transparent about past employment issues: honesty about past dismissals or disciplinary actions is essential, because withholding such information can be viewed as dishonest.

By following these principles, applicants can maintain integrity in the recruitment process and avoid potential allegations of dishonesty.

Need support with your HR?

Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

Our expert advisers are experienced in supporting schools with all aspects of staff management consultancy and recruitment. We have a wide range of education HR consultancy services to choose from, offering complete flexibility for your school. Get in touch about how we can help you.

The appointment and recruitment section of our CEFMi website contains model policies, related model letters and forms, guidance and checklists. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text, including over 170 policies written specifically for schools.