Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Moneybox
    • By Moneybox 17th May 17, 8:38 PM
    • 143Posts
    • 69Thanks
    Moneybox
    Appointment made without interview
    • #1
    • 17th May 17, 8:38 PM
    Appointment made without interview 17th May 17 at 8:38 PM
    An internal promotion was advistised and application required a letter. 3 staff submitted letters with the understanding that this was to be followed by interview for the post.

    The post was given to 1 of the staff. No interview took place.

    As far as I can acertain they have not broken an employment law but could be challenged with an E.T. Claim of discrimination as have not treated the 2 other staff fairly in considering the appointment.

    The person appointed is capable of the role but I am concerned of the process.

    Do the other two staff have grounds for an E.T claim of discrimination?
Page 1
    • Takeaway_Addict
    • By Takeaway_Addict 17th May 17, 8:41 PM
    • 5,588 Posts
    • 6,401 Thanks
    Takeaway_Addict
    • #2
    • 17th May 17, 8:41 PM
    • #2
    • 17th May 17, 8:41 PM
    An internal promotion was advistised and application required a letter. 3 staff submitted letters with the understanding that this was to be followed by interview for the post.

    The post was given to 1 of the staff. No interview took place.

    As far as I can acertain they have not broken an employment law but could be challenged with an E.T. Claim of discrimination as have not treated the 2 other staff fairly in considering the appointment.

    The person appointed is capable of the role but I am concerned of the process.

    Do the other two staff have grounds for an E.T claim of discrimination?
    Originally posted by Moneybox
    Unless the discrimination is due to a protected characteristic such as gender or race then simply no. The employer has no duty to do interviews etc.
    Don't trust a forum for advice. Get proper paid advice. Any advice given should always be checked
    • ohreally
    • By ohreally 17th May 17, 8:54 PM
    • 6,153 Posts
    • 4,695 Thanks
    ohreally
    • #3
    • 17th May 17, 8:54 PM
    • #3
    • 17th May 17, 8:54 PM
    What does the recruitment policy refer to?
    • xapprenticex
    • By xapprenticex 17th May 17, 9:02 PM
    • 1,141 Posts
    • 1,055 Thanks
    xapprenticex
    • #4
    • 17th May 17, 9:02 PM
    • #4
    • 17th May 17, 9:02 PM
    Yeah, if staff #2 didnt get it because of the colour of his skin and staff #3 didnt get it because she is Christian then yeah, they have a very strong case.
    • General Grant
    • By General Grant 17th May 17, 9:11 PM
    • 638 Posts
    • 738 Thanks
    General Grant
    • #5
    • 17th May 17, 9:11 PM
    • #5
    • 17th May 17, 9:11 PM
    Discrimination is not unlawful. They have to discriminate in order to decide whom to appoint - even if there were only one applicant they would have to discriminate on the basis of whether to appoint at all.

    Unlawful discrimination is only where a decision is on the basis of a protected characteristic.

    If there is an organisational recruitment policy which says candidates have to be interviewed then someone who applied could, I suppose, raise a grievance with their employer, following the grievance procedures. But I doubt that it would get them anywhere.
    • theoretica
    • By theoretica 18th May 17, 6:42 PM
    • 4,802 Posts
    • 6,032 Thanks
    theoretica
    • #6
    • 18th May 17, 6:42 PM
    • #6
    • 18th May 17, 6:42 PM
    If they were sure which of the three they wanted for the job, going through the motions of interviews sounds like a waste of everyone's time. The employer already knows more about the applicants than they would find out in most interviews.
    But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,
    Had the whole of their cash in his care.
    Lewis Carroll
    • jobbingmusician
    • By jobbingmusician 18th May 17, 7:17 PM
    • 18,611 Posts
    • 18,870 Thanks
    jobbingmusician
    • #7
    • 18th May 17, 7:17 PM
    • #7
    • 18th May 17, 7:17 PM
    Also, depending on the post, they might find out far more from a letter than from an interview. (Can you tell that I am fed up with working with illiterate staff? )
    I'm the Board Guide on the Matched Betting; Referrers and Jobseeking & Training boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge posts there. Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.

    The good folk of the matched betting board are now (I hope!) supporting Macmillan, in memory of Fifigrace. Visit
    https://www.gofundme.com/running-the-leeds-10k-for-macmillan
    • Moneybox
    • By Moneybox 20th May 17, 4:58 PM
    • 143 Posts
    • 69 Thanks
    Moneybox
    • #8
    • 20th May 17, 4:58 PM
    • #8
    • 20th May 17, 4:58 PM
    Thank you. The staff concerned were asked to show an interest in the post by letter. One of the staff this concerns to is at the end of her maternity leave and is not known by the new management. Would you still advise them to leave the matter or challenge. Opportunities for promotion are rare with this company.
    • Undervalued
    • By Undervalued 21st May 17, 4:18 PM
    • 3,047 Posts
    • 2,792 Thanks
    Undervalued
    • #9
    • 21st May 17, 4:18 PM
    • #9
    • 21st May 17, 4:18 PM
    Thank you. The staff concerned were asked to show an interest in the post by letter. One of the staff this concerns to is at the end of her maternity leave and is not known by the new management. Would you still advise them to leave the matter or challenge. Opportunities for promotion are rare with this company.
    Originally posted by Moneybox
    Leave it.

    The maternity aspect is irrelevant. She is entitled to her job back if she wishes to return or, if that is no longer available, a suitable alternative. That is all. It doesn't give her any additional rights.

    As others have said there is no right to a promotion and the firm can appoint whoever they please, with or without interview, providing they don't discriminate on one of the few legally protected grounds (race, gender, religion etc).
    • phill99
    • By phill99 21st May 17, 5:40 PM
    • 7,907 Posts
    • 7,148 Thanks
    phill99
    This sounds like sour grapes. Go down the ET route at your peril. Do that and you will suddenly find all of your work comes under scrutiny as they try and amass evidence against you to give you the big elbow.
    Eat vegetables and fear no creditors, rather than eat duck and hide.
    • molerat
    • By molerat 21st May 17, 6:19 PM
    • 16,759 Posts
    • 10,979 Thanks
    molerat
    If they were sure which of the three they wanted for the job, going through the motions of interviews sounds like a waste of everyone's time.
    Originally posted by theoretica
    At least they didn't go to interview unlike with local government posts
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

849Posts Today

7,110Users online

Martin's Twitter