Job applications: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
What can dishonesty in a job application mean and how should employers deal with it? A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision that Mr P Easton had not been unfairly dismissed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force). The ruling stated that the employee’s failure to include relevant and material employment history details on his application form constituted gross misconduct, and his dismissal was fair and fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Case Summary: Mr P Easton v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Border Force) [2025] EAT 15
Mr Easton worked for the Home Office from 2002 until 2016. He was dismissed on 13 June 2016 for gross misconduct involving inappropriate behaviour towards females and temper issues. This resulted in a subsequent 3-month employment gap. He then started working with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) on 4 September 2016.
Mr Easton later applied to a role in the Border Force (part of the Home Office). Under the ‘Employment History’ section of the application form, Mr Easton presented himself as working for the Home Office from ‘2002-2016’ and the DWP from ‘2016 to current’. Mr Easton did not divulge his dismissal or the employment gap in the application form or at the interview stage, and by presenting his employment history in years, his employment gap and dismissal was concealed. The application form contained a checkbox whereby Mr Easton confirmed that he understood that he may be subject to disciplinary action or rejected if he was to provide false information or withhold relevant details.
Mr Easton re-joined the Home Office as part of Border Force, but on receipt of information that he had been previously dismissed for gross misconduct, a disciplinary investigation was launched, which the Employment Tribunal (ET) described as ‘extremely thorough’ and ‘more than reasonable’. Following the investigation, he was dismissed for gross misconduct for failure to disclose relevant and material information in respect of the fact and circumstances of his dismissal and concealing a period of unemployment. Mr Easton appealed but the decision to dismiss was upheld.
Employment Tribunal decision
The ET held that the Claimant had not been unfairly dismissed. They found that the dismissal was fair, and the employer had satisfied that his dismissal was for the potentially fair reason of misconduct, by failing to disclose relevant and material information on his application form. In dismissing him for such reasons, the employer had behaved within the band of reasonable responses that a reasonable employer in those circumstances would have reached, especially given the nature of organisation, his role and the misconduct. The ET also held that the procedure was “thorough” and likewise fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Employment Appeal Tribunal decision
The EAT dismissed Mr Easton’s appeal, agreeing with the ET that the decision was within the band of reasonable responses. The EAT added that by presenting his employment history using years only, his previous dismissal and subsequent employment gap was obscured, and that the ET was entitled to find that his employer had reasonable grounds to believe that the decision to present information in such a way had been taken dishonestly.
Furthermore, the EAT found that the ET adequately addressed and concluded that a reasonable job applicant faced with a blank box headed ‘Employment History’ would have understood that the information needed to be presented in a manner to reveal any gaps in employment. The ET found that Mr Easton did understand that dismissals and unemployment in the previous three years would be relevant and material information required for a job application. Significantly, Mr Easton confirmed his understanding of its relevance during cross-examination. The EAT held that the ET took the correct approach of reviewing the employer’s process and concluding that it was open to the employer to find that Mr Easton’s decision to withhold that information was deliberate and dishonest.
What can employers learn from this?
- Ensure you have thorough pre-employment checks – employers should ensure that job application forms explicitly requests an applicant’s full employment history, including exact dates of roles, and specifically requests any gaps in employment as well as reasons for leaving previous roles. This is particularly important in light of the Employment Rights Bill and its proposal to remove the two year qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights (which are not expected to take effect any earlier than Autumn 2026).
- Ensure you review and verify employment history – an application form should not be seen as a tick box exercise. Employers should verify employment history and investigate any causes for concern prior to making any recruitment decisions.
- Correct procedure is key – a fair and thorough investigation, disciplinary and appeal process is essential. Employers should bear this in mind before deciding to dismiss, given that the investigation will be relevant when determining whether such decision falls within the band of reasonable responses. Employers should also ensure their procedure and decisions are consistent.
Share:
Specialists in employment law
Speak to one of our experts for astute advice and legal representation
Arrange a callHOW CAN WE HELP?
To get in touch with one of our legal experts please fill in your details.
Enjoy That? You Might Like These:
guides
articles
articles