Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

tooldle

Please do keep going. Persistance is really required to see such a claim through. I took an ex-employer to tribunal. The whole process took close on two years to reach a conclusion with many twists and turns. It will be stressful but it does sound as though the Union are providing excellent support. Unite helped me and I can't speak highly of the employment lawyers they use.
I wish your wife well, stay strong.

hundredk

hedger wrote: »

the case is ongoing and will more than likely be going to tribunal - she has a final grievane appeal to attend shortly

another issue has now come up. my wife was interviewed for a new job and low and behold the new employer rang her ex-director for his reference (even tho she hadnt put him down as a referee) as they both knew each other from way back (how unlucky was that?). as expected the ex-director bad mouthed my wife and discussed her equal pay and unfair dismissal case at length with the new employer to try to get him to not offer her a job - can he do this?
the new employer rang my wife and asked her up for a chat as he had her offer of employment completed and ready to send prior to this phonecall. they met today and he listened to her side of the story. the new employer is considering now wat to do but tbh it doesnt look good.
my wife is very upset that not only has a guy cost her her job but will maybe prevent her from gettin another role!! :mad:

The new employer should be able to demonstrate a robust selection process was undertaken and why your wife was (prior to taking references) the preferred candidate. If something changed their mind after taking up references, it must be pertinent to the selection process and/or the job description.

If she doesn't receive the offer (and while you're taking everyone to court), consider whether the new employer could be taken to court as there's nothing more to lose.

Ask for written feedback on selection criteria (in which your wife knows she was preferred candiate due to pending offer letter). Also the reasons why she is not now the preferred candidate (only the reference could have changed this). If the reasons for withdrawing the offer are based on lies and/or not relevant to the selection process and/or the job description you may have a chance.

I'm sure some legal bod may come along and pick the bones out of this but I've certainly seen offers withdrawn at reference stage, challenged and subsequently either confirmed the offer or got away with a marginal call.

Of course, if others aren't involved in the interview process, the old boss and new boss could collude to present "facts" that suits both their their causes.

hedger

hundredk wrote: »

The new employer should be able to demonstrate a robust selection process was undertaken and why your wife was (prior to taking references) the preferred candidate. If something changed their mind after taking up references, it must be pertinent to the selection process and/or the job description.

If she doesn't receive the offer (and while you're taking everyone to court), consider whether the new employer could be taken to court as there's nothing more to lose.

Ask for written feedback on selection criteria (in which your wife knows she was preferred candiate due to pending offer letter). Also the reasons why she is not now the preferred candidate (only the reference could have changed this). If the reasons for withdrawing the offer are based on lies and/or not relevant to the selection process and/or the job description you may have a chance.

I'm sure some legal bod may come along and pick the bones out of this but I've certainly seen offers withdrawn at reference stage, challenged and subsequently either confirmed the offer or got away with a marginal call.

Of course, if others aren't involved in the interview process, the old boss and new boss could collude to present "facts" that suits both their their causes.

this is what i was thinkin too but at this rate we'll up in more courtrooms than petrocelli! the new employers part time HR manager (who also owns his own HR consultancy) was present at interview and subsequent chat. I just hope she gets the job offer that she deserved and we can move on

woody01

the case is ongoing and will more than likely be going to tribunal

This statement alone proves how little you know.

More than likely.....c'mon.
I used to take part in IT's as a shop steward and i can tell you 199% that you won't have a clue until the IT1's have been sent and received.

Whether you are telling us the whole or not (if not, please don't as you are very boring). But, if you are, i can guarantee this case would NOT get to industrial tribunal.

hundredk wrote: »

The new employer should be able to demonstrate a robust selection process was undertaken and why your wife was (prior to taking references) the preferred candidate. If something changed their mind after taking up references, it must be pertinent to the selection process and/or the job description.

If she doesn't receive the offer (and while you're taking everyone to court), consider whether the new employer could be taken to court as there's nothing more to lose.

Ask for written feedback on selection criteria (in which your wife knows she was preferred candiate due to pending offer letter). Also the reasons why she is not now the preferred candidate (only the reference could have changed this). If the reasons for withdrawing the offer are based on lies and/or not relevant to the selection process and/or the job description you may have a chance.

I'm sure some legal bod may come along and pick the bones out of this but I've certainly seen offers withdrawn at reference stage, challenged and subsequently either confirmed the offer or got away with a marginal call.

Of course, if others aren't involved in the interview process, the old boss and new boss could collude to present "facts" that suits both their their causes.

What a strange post!
All of the things that you suggest to ask a prospective employer for, they are under no obligation to give.
When i employ someone, i do not have to give reasons to candidates as to why they were unsucessful.

Alot of this appears to be that Hedger (in his infinite dream world) seems to think his wife is far more skilled/intelligent and employable than she actually is.

As for the old employer and new employer talking about her.....you have just proved what a fabrication this fairytale is.
Think........firstly the old and new employer are friends.
Secondly, the new employer is considering putting it in WRITING that HIS friend, the old employer, has acted unfairly.

Sorry Hedger.......story and you exposed for the BS it is!

hedger wrote: »

er not in the slightest. the company now frantically back pedalling after FACTS were produced (most of which they were not aware of). case ongoing thanks. just cudnt be annoyed listening to half the patronising idiots on here....

With yourself at the top of that particular tree.
You clearly are very ignorant and stupid.

hundredk

woody01 wrote: »

Originally Posted by hundredk

I'm sure some legal bod may come along and pick the bones out of this but I've certainly seen offers withdrawn at reference stage, challenged and subsequently either confirmed the offer or got away with a marginal call.

What a strange post!
All of the things that you suggest to ask a prospective employer for, they are under no obligation to give.
When i employ someone, i do not have to give reasons to candidates as to why they were unsucessful.

Not so strange.

As I said, I've seen several situations where applicants have challenged the selection process and changed the outcome from a no to a yes, often, but not always on the grounds of discrimination in one form or another. Similarly I've seen offers made subject to reference, subsequently withdrawn only to be challenged and the offer reinstated. This frequently happens in the public sector but can and does happen in large private sector companies.

Discrimination is illegal and in the case of small companies, whilst the same principles apply it is more difficult to prove because often only one person is involved in selection. However, in larger companies where more than one person is involved in the selection, this is more difficult to cover up. See this thread which relates to discimination/selection.

As a shop steward I would have thought you would be aware of such defences through experience, even if you are not able to cite the legal perspective.

hedger

woody01 wrote: »

This statement alone proves how little you know.

More than likely.....c'mon.
I used to take part in IT's as a shop steward and i can tell you 199% that you won't have a clue until the IT1's have been sent and received.

Whether you are telling us the whole or not (if not, please don't as you are very boring). But, if you are, i can guarantee this case would NOT get to industrial tribunal.


What a strange post!
All of the things that you suggest to ask a prospective employer for, they are under no obligation to give.
When i employ someone, i do not have to give reasons to candidates as to why they were unsucessful.

Alot of this appears to be that Hedger (in his infinite dream world) seems to think his wife is far more skilled/intelligent and employable than she actually is.

As for the old employer and new employer talking about her.....you have just proved what a fabrication this fairytale is.
Think........firstly the old and new employer are friends.
Secondly, the new employer is considering putting it in WRITING that HIS friend, the old employer, has acted unfairly.

Sorry Hedger.......story and you exposed for the BS it is!




With yourself at the top of that particular tree.
You clearly are very ignorant and stupid.

ah my old friend woody :T

im glad to inform you that we received 3 letters this morning confirming that this will indeed be going to tribunal -"company has serious questions to answer and have 28 days to reply". the "old friends" act is all very well but the mistake that has been made (and recorded) is that the new employer has told EVERYTHING that the ex director said. All my wife wanted at this stage was to move on and get on with working but some dinosaur has tried to stop her and u want us to just let him get away with it? i know you want us to go away (and im sorry u find peoples rights boring - i suggest yous stop reading the posts and go and play with the buses) but we will see this out to the bitter end as my wife is 100% in the right and has been treated appallingly

hedger

hundredk wrote: »

Not so strange.

As I said, I've seen several situations where applicants have challenged the selection process and changed the outcome from a no to a yes, often, but not always on the grounds of discrimination in one form or another. Similarly I've seen offers made subject to reference, subsequently withdrawn only to be challenged and the offer reinstated. This frequently happens in the public sector but can and does happen in large private sector companies.

Discrimination is illegal and in the case of small companies, whilst the same principles apply it is more difficult to prove because often only one person is involved in selection. However, in larger companies where more than one person is involved in the selection, this is more difficult to cover up. See this thread which relates to discimination/selection.

As a shop steward I would have thought you would be aware of such defences through experience, even if you are not able to cite the legal perspective.

the events of the last few days has, imo and that of our union advisor, has strengthened our case considerably

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Discrimination is illegal

On the basis of not employing someone who sues at will it isnt.

the new employer has told EVERYTHING that the ex director said

Do you have that in writing Hedger?

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

On the basis of not employing someone who sues at will it isnt.

Do you have that in writing Hedger?

On the basis of not employing someone who sues at will it isnt. - pathetic statement tbh. "sues at will"? she isnt sueing anyone atm and never has in her life. she was unfairly dismissed in a concocted redundnacy process and has now had lies told about her by the same person. you might just accept this but we wont hence why she is going thru the tribunal process which was set up to protect people



Do you have that in writing Hedger? - er no but the new employer must explain why he had an offer of employment drated and then (maybe) withdrew it. this is due to a bad reference. he asked my wife for some further info (appraisals etc) to prove her refutal of the claims - she done this and (based on advice) covered it with a letter clarifying her position. at a tribunal the new employer can b called to give evidence. to keep himself right he must tell the truth - why wud he lie? so if he tells the truth the ex director is in very hot water

bendix

I have had preferred candidates for roles before, and withdrawn them many times after reference checking.

Unless you can categorically prove lies were told by the ex-director (not he said, she said) you don't have a chance in hell.

Frankly, if I referenced checked someone and was told they were involved in litigation and tribunals against their ex-employer then I'd withdraw my offer immediately and - legally - I'm under no obligation to explain why.