told job was given to someone more qualified then readvertised.

terra_ferma

speedbird1973 wrote: »

No Terra - If I said "We're not giving you a job because you're a jungle bunny" then I'd accept we'd get hauled over the coals for discrimination. And quite rightly too I hasten to add!

However "People who may not fit in" are not covered under antidiscrimation laws. Laws like this are written to make sure that people have been discriminated against in the past have a little protection. They are not there to be scared of if you have a genuine reason for not employing someone. My HR director assures me "We're not convince you'll fit into the team" is fine. I'm not critisising your HR experience Terra, but bearing in mind if I didn't want to employ someone for "bad" reasons they'd have a tough time proving in court, I white felllow, who's abled bodied but a bit of a !!!!!! would have no chance!

You are taking risks though. Discrimination covers so many areas now, it's not just race and gender.
I suppose it also depends on the type of business you are in, in my line of work Employment tribunal is VERY bad news. A part from the cost involved, a company losing a case would lose points when bidding for public sector tenders.

But I still think 'you don't fit in but we don't know why' it's not a good explanation for not giving someone a job. It's too obvious that someone 'different' would not fit in. If there is a good reason than it must be explained properly.

Incidentally not giving a job to someone because of their poor attitude at the interview is a perfectly good reason (been there... I remember someone who started the interview criticising our procedures, or an internal candidate who was promised a job by someone in the panel and did not make any effort at the interview - but I was in charge so she did not get it).

terra_ferma

bendix wrote: »

Completely agree. There is no reason why an employer has to give a reason for not hiring someone, even if they are qualified on paper. People seem to think if they meet the requirements in the job spec, they have an automatic right to the position. Not so at all.

The less your explanation makes sense the more likely you are to get hassle from a disgruntled candidate. And even if you don't give it to them at the time, you need to be able to justify your decision (and provide evidence) if they take it further. If they are the best candidate (on paper) if will be harder to justify not giving them the job unless you produce sound evidence ('I don't know why' will not do....)

speedbird1973

terra_ferma wrote: »

The less your explanation makes sense the more likely you are to get hassle from a disgruntled candidate. And even if you don't give it to them at the time, you need to be able to justify your decision (and provide evidence) if they take it further. If they are the best candidate (on paper) if will be harder to justify not giving them the job unless you produce sound evidence ('I don't know why' will not do....)

I know you'll be suprised - I DO agree with you. However from my perspective, if you can give someone good honest feedback, it helps them! I would be more specific rather than "say you won't fit in, don't know why!" - but I would be honest (unless they were ginger! :rotfl:)

bendix

terra_ferma wrote: »

The less your explanation makes sense the more likely you are to get hassle from a disgruntled candidate. And even if you don't give it to them at the time, you need to be able to justify your decision (and provide evidence) if they take it further. If they are the best candidate (on paper) if will be harder to justify not giving them the job unless you produce sound evidence ('I don't know why' will not do....)

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You're just making it up as you go. There is absolutely nothing in law or in common practice to support your statements.

As a potential interviewer I am under absolutely no obligation to justify my decision to not hire someone.

They are offering their services to me. Even if I have a need for those services, there is nothing in law to make me buy those services from that person and, if i so refuse, there is nothing in law to make me have to justify that decision.

woody01

terra_ferma wrote: »

It seems clear from what you say that you don't have a good grasp of employment law, or a decent HR to back you up.
It may cost you/your company dear if you reject someone covered by discrimination law and all you had to say was "we were impressed with his experience, his qualifications and believed he performed very well in the interview, but we weren't sure about whether he'd fit in their team and we didn't know why" :rotfl:
The Employment Tribunal would love that!

Complete rubbish!
If i decided not to employ someone as i think 'they wouldn't fit in then i am more than legally justified to do so.

This has nothing to do with discrimination.......i would want a settled team and i do NOT have to employ anyone that could upset this.

But I still think 'you don't fit in' but we don't know why' it's not a good explanation for not giving someone a job. It's too obvious that someone 'different' would not fit in. If there is a good reason than it must be explained properly

Sorry but this is also incorrect!
There is nothing in any law that states i must 'give reasons' for deciding a candidate is not right for the position or company.

terra_ferma wrote: »

The less your explanation makes sense the more likely you are to get hassle from a disgruntled candidate. And even if you don't give it to them at the time, you need to be able to justify your decision (and provide evidence) if they take it further. If they are the best candidate (on paper) if will be harder to justify not giving them the job unless you produce sound evidence ('I don't know why' will not do....)

This is also false.
You do not have to justify why to any candidate or give evidence to support this.

I am sure i read somewhere you are in HR.
I really hope you aren't as some of the information you are giving is very wide of the mark.

bendix

woody01 wrote: »

Complete rubbish!
If i decided not to employ someone as i think 'they wouldn't fit in then i am more than legally justified to do so.

This has nothing to do with discrimination.......i would want a settled team and i do NOT have to employ anyone that could upset this.

It is obvious you are not an employer else you would realise this.

Spot on. The fact that terra-firma refers to The Employment Tribunal as not being impressed is testament to that.

What possible relevance is the Employment Tribunal in this? The ETis for disputes and arbitration between employers and employees, NOT prospective employers and interviewees. There is no employment relationship until employment commences; as such the interviewee has none of the rights of an employee.

Could terrafirma please refer us to cases where the ET has been used in failed interview scenarios?

Honestly, I don't know where people get these ridiculous ideas from.

bendix

When you strip an interview down to its bare essentials, it is a buying and selling arrangement. The employer is looking to buy some services. The interviewee is trying to persuade the employer to buy from him/her.

If the interviewee fails to persuade the employer, the buyer has no obligation to explain why.

If I go into a car showroom and am shown cars which meet my specs and do what I want them to do, am I obliged to buy that car? No. And if I refuse, am I obliged to tell the car salesman my reasons? Of course not.

There is no contractual relationship, no mutual obligation, no expectation. I buy, you sell, or no deal and walk away, thank you very much.

Proc

It's people like terra-firma that cause this outrage everytime someone doesn't get a job.

All I read from OP is this:

"I wasn't offered a job. How can I get back at them?"

People seem to think that because they've got out of bed to go to a job interview, they should get it by default.

If they don't get it, it's probably because they're black, pregnant, or have no legs. The most recent favourite one popping up is from people who are at a child-bearing age crying they weren't offered a job and they were discriminated against. Get real, at least 30% of the female population are probably at a child-bearing age. Heaven forbid the employer should have made smalltalk about kids, partners, living arrangements etc. Maybe people should just accept "you're not suitable for the job" means "I thought you were a bad candidate I don't want to waste any more time with you".

An employer absolutely does not have to give any reason why they didn't offer someone a job.

bristol_pilot

bendix wrote: »

When you strip an interview down to its bare essentials, it is a buying and selling arrangement. The employer is looking to buy some services. The interviewee is trying to persuade the employer to buy from him/her.

If the interviewee fails to persuade the employer, the buyer has no obligation to explain why.

If I go into a car showroom and am shown cars which meet my specs and do what I want them to do, am I obliged to buy that car? No. And if I refuse, am I obliged to tell the car salesman my reasons? Of course not.

There is no contractual relationship, no mutual obligation, no expectation. I buy, you sell, or no deal and walk away, thank you very much.

Correct. And the first rule of sales is - if the buyer does not like the salesperson they will not buy, no matter how good the product is.

bendix

Strange not to hear terra_firma's response to all this . . . . .