Flippant replies like this to what is obviously a serious question really grinds my gears
Trying to hustle a background check grinds my gears.
don’t think it’s a hustle. It’s a legitimate question as to whether he needs to disclose, what i’m assuming is, a stupid mistake from the past.
IMO if the direct question is “do you have any past convictions,” the technically you don’t.
It depends on the role. A section 10 can appear on certain searches, for example, if you are applying for a role to work with children, disabled persons or in law enforcement.
Yeah not a hustle at all.
Except that a Section 10(c) explicitly does not record a conviction, his question is a genuine one. Getting a section 10 means you don’t have a criminal record, and most disclosure request ask only about convictions, but this one ALSO requires disclosure of findings of guilt, which he says is what happened.
His question is whether the Section 10 would result in the guilty finding being masked.
If you’re going to accuse someone of dishonesty, at least have a clue.
After you get a section10, (with some limited exceptions) you do not have to disclose it to your employer or anyone else- even if they ask specifically about them. More and more employers these days are getting smarter about the way in which they ask questions about criminal history in job applications. Many ask not just about convictions, but also about sections 10s or “findings of guilt” (a section 10 is still a finding of guilt). Many people presume that if a question like this is asked, you have to answer it honestly and disclose any previous section 10s.
This may not necessarily be the correct approach. Section 12 of the Criminal Records Act 1991 says that you do not need to disclose a “spent conviction” to any one for any purpose. Because that act also defines a section 10 as a “spent conviction”, it can be argued that even if an employer asks you a direct question about any previous section 10’s or ‘findings of guilt", you do not have to disclose these as long as any section10 bond has expired.
At this stage there is no decided cases as to what the correct position is. This article should not be construed as legal advice, it simply raises an argument that may or may not be endorsed by a court.
From https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/penalties/section-10
WILL A SECTION 10 APPEAR ON A POLICE CHECK?
If you receive a section 10 dismissal and you are not subjected to any bond period the section 10 will not appear on a criminal history check.
If you are still subject to the bond period the matter will appear on a criminal history check. When the bond period expires the section 10 will no longer appear on your record.
If you are dealt with by a section 10, dismissal and you have completed your bond period, the offence you committed for which you were dealt with by way of section 10 becomes spent.
Under the Section 12 of the Criminal Records Act 1991, a person does not have to reveal a “spent conviction” to anybody for any reason. This means that when you get a Section 10 (with conditions), you don’t have to disclose it to your prospective employer or anyone else as long as the duration of any bonds or rehabilitation programs have expired.
Seems to me to be dishonest and fishing for technicalities. Why not just be open about it and/or comply with the contract? If it ever comes up seems like grounds for dismissal.
because someone doesn’t want to be unfairly judged by a stupid mistake from the past, something minor enough that the courts have said it’s not worth being on someone’s permanent record. Asking specifically for a Section 10 to be revealed is actually fishing and dishonest by a company as people aren’t required to reveal it
Thanks to those who have given genuine responses. It was a silly mistake while I was younger and the role is in the private sector where no additional checks need to be carried out for children, govt security clearances etc.
It’s not fishing for a technicality - it’s a genuine question that I’m a little confused regarding and wanted clarification on. If in fact the law does state that you are not required to disclose this info then I’m unsure how it could be classed as dishonest to answer a question in line with the law.
2 Likes
And employers asking vaguely worded questions, combed over by their lawyers, to fish for more private information then they’re legally entitled to, under the threat of termination of employment, isn’t a hustle?
Fuck off with your slimebag anti-worker shit
1 Like
I see it as overreach by the company in question.
It wasn’t that long ago when gay men would wear wedding rings (married or not), to stop the employer trying to fish for sexual preference / discriminate on that preference.
With young & married women, it’s the opposite, as they often assume they’ll soon be pregnant and not hire them. So women sometimes remove their wedding rings.
Different examples of overreach, of course, but is common for companies to try & find out info through dishonest means.
As to topic - my understanding is the question is limited to convictions only in almost all cases.
2 Likes
Lol. Im an active member of the socialist party. My issue is with the dishonesty. Why not just explain the situation?
What kind of card carrying socialist would tell a young entry-level prospective worker to assume good faith from an employer who has already demonstrated bad faith in over-reaching for information which could reasonably be used to discriminate against employment? In this economy?
Have your seen the youth unemployment rate? Have you seen the stats around the number of entry-level positions being advertised? Have you seen the systematic abuses of employee rights in industries which heavily employ young people?
It has never been harder to get your foot into the door, relative to the health of the overall economy, and it’s perfectly reasonable to make sure you don’t shoot yourself in the foot any more than you need to.
6 Likes
Reviewing the contract further it does state ‘you may sign this declaration without disclosing a conviction if the conviction has been quashed, spent or lapsed, and you are not required to disclose the offence or conviction under relevant federal, state or territory law’ which seems to contradict them asking you to disclose findings of guilt.
From what I’ve gathered and seems to be the opinion here is that a s10b becomes spent and therefore not required to be disclosed at the conclusion of any bond that was put in place.
Thanks again to those who contributed meaningful posts.
4 Likes
Do we have an excel spreadsheet thread anymore?
I don’t think so, but why do you ask?
Basically, I need to know if I can set up a spreadsheet so that one person can input priority work orders into it, plus some relevant information about that job, that can then be read by 4 different sections.
Sort of like job cards but updated to 1997 via the spreadsheet.
The original idea comes from fast food monitors that tell the 15 year old school kiddies what order to do next and what’s in it.
I just don’t know the correct phraseology to adequately search for it, I’ve got bugger all chance of getting a budget to get a standalone program and have no idea if out 1993 version of JDE has the native ability to do this, and if it does, it’s probably inadequate because 20 year old version of JDE.
From the brief look I got in today it looks like excel has an update date feature.