I have noticed that more and more companies want to do DBS checks on a lot of jobs and I was wondering can they discriminate and withdraw job offers if someone has a spent conviction(s) and the jobs do not involve working with children or other things like that?

Jobs like warehouse jobs are coming up with a requirement for DBS checks to be done too so does anyone know if companies can discriminate with people who have spent convictions on jobs like warehouse jobs and or delivery driving jobs?

Provided the job offer was made clear it was subject to satisfactory background checks it wouldn't be a breach of contract and certainly not grounds to claim discrimination.

I'd ha e thought it fairly obvious that employers can use background checks for any role. What if you went for a delivery driver role but had a conviction for dangerous driving or a warehouse operative for burglary or similar... You can see how it can have a direct impact on a person's viability for the role.

I'm not sure why you are using the word discriminate here, and yes job offers can be withdrawn.

If you apply for a job that requires a DBS check, then the results of that DBS check will measured using the company's DBS policy. Your conviction might be spent after 4 years but the company policy may say that won't employ anyone who has been convicted of something within the last 10 years. It's not discrimination, it's their policy and if you want to work for that company then you have to play by their rules.

I thought the whole point of the Rehabilitation of offenders act was to treat people with convictions as if they no longer had them after the convictions are spent. It sounds like companies are abusing the DBS process by requiring to take DBS checks and penalise them still even if their convictions are spent. I don't think the law allows for that unless it involves working with children or other vulnerable people.

It's not all about children and vulnerable adults though, it depends on the job and what the conviction was.

I take it you have had a job offer withdrawn.

Edit:
Exceptions
If the job requires a criminal record check, and this shows that someone’s not suitable for a job because of a spent conviction or caution, the employer can withdraw a job offer. The employer should tell the applicant that an exception applies.

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

Yes if you lied about it on your application form. An offer can be withdrawn if any false information is given at any stage of the application process.

There are a fair few jobs asking people if they have any unspent convictions and then still want DBS checks done anyway. So it sounds like in job adverts like that, they don't care if convictions are spent or not spent unless they want to check convictions are spent. One of the companies doing this does seem to have a high turn over of staff and I wonder why. Either they are too picky or for whatever reason, people keep on walking or they need staff on a very regular basis.

Exception applies. That sounds like for certain jobs rather than the employer choosing what suits them.

Thats what I said in both of my posts - it depends on the job. If a job requires a DBS then the company will have a DBS policy. You can try asking the company if you can see a copy of their DBS policy.

I don't understand what the issue is. If a company is asking about convictions then you answer yes or no. If the answer is no that will show up on the DBS and won't affect the job. If the answer is yes that will show up on the DBS and will only affect the job if the job requires a clean DBS check.

Unfortunately, the ROOA doesn't apply to some companies - e.g. US based ones, who don't recognise the ROOA (Just try to get an Esta to enter the USA if you have a drink drive conviction 20 year sold!).

Besides, a company can reject any applicant without needing a reason, providing its not discriminatory - e.g. race, religion, sex etc.

In some cases, e.g. bus driver, you simply are unlikely to be taken on if you've had a serious driving conviction in the last 15 years - that includes insurance purposes!

On it's own the word 'discriminate' is simply about applying a criteria which differentiates, so it's an accurate word to use.

Granted, tone of OP and most common contextual usage of the word tends to almost automatically imply unfair discrimination, criteria that should have no bearing because they are irrelevant. Which is a shame really, because it ought to be a neutral word rather than a negative one.

On topic, employers 'discriminate' on all manner of criteria perfectly legitimately - qualifications, experience, answers to interview questions etc etc.... and something like past convictions (spent or otherwise) can quite reasonably fall into that category in many cases, it's just a question of whether it's relevant to the role or not (regardless of whether it's something employers considered as closely in the past or not).

Yep, we've done one this week...

In fairness the big thing about this is honesty and integrity; disclosure and being transparent about past misdemeanours is a part of the rehabilitation process in my opinion. We state that you need to tell us about spent convictions so if you don't do that then your DBS comes back as unclear then we're going to take a dim view.

On the flip side we've appointed a large number of people with convictions so it works both ways.

You're only allowed to take spent convictions (and non-disclosure of) into account if the job role you are recruiting for falls within the permitted exceptions.

If the circumstances fall outside the permitted exceptions you will be acting unlawfully.

Employers need to be careful to avoid completing unlawful DBS checks as they might end up as criminals themselves as a result.

Our employees work with vulnerable children and adults thus any convictions that are in breach of safeguarding are likely to end up with the offer being withdrawn spent or not, declared or not.

Not sure what you mean by employers 'completing unlawful DBS checks.' The employer administers the DBS check or they engage an umbrella body to do so

What do you mean by unlawful DBS checks?

There is a lot of confusion over the different types of criminal records checks.

There are three types: basic, standard and enhanced.

Basic checks only show unspent convictions while Standard and Enhanced checks show all convictions spent or unspent.

However legally employers can only request a standard or enhanced check for specified jobs (eg people working with children, care workers, some financial jobs). If it is a warehouse job they will almost certainly only be able to request a basic disclosure which will not show any spent convictions.

Yes it does happen. I was eaves dropping on a conversation at the job centre once. The guy had been sacked after a few weeks on the job. He must have had a DBS check, he had a record for shoplifting many years ago, stole a frozen Pizza apparently.

You can face a DBS check even when applying to help out at a food bank or in a charity shop.

If that's the case the employer was stupid; DBS check first then the employee starts work. Not employee begins his job then DBS checked and fired!

I have seen many people start jobs and be removed after days or weeks and we are talking well known companies here

Suppose it depends how desperate they are for staff at that time

I imagine it does. I can't imagine that the DBS check happens instantly - weeks perhaps? - and they may need staff now. Presumably they are taken on under condition of it coming back clear, which is fair enough I think as long as the employee understands that (which surely they would if they knew they were being checked in the first place!).

I guess they could re-name it and call it a trial work period.

Spot on, Up to a month once from what i remember, They can't always be back in a few days and they were desperate for staff. Hired on a 'If it comes back clear you stay' type of thing

That must be somewhere with limited risk. You wouldn't get that in my sector as vulnerable people are invovled (though for my last job I ended up without a DBS check at all as I was on a dual contract and neither party could agree who was responsible).