told job was given to someone more qualified then readvertised.

bendix

Idiophreak wrote: »

Quite. Still don't think it's unreasonable for someone to ask for feedback if they don't get the gig, though.

It's not unreasonable to ask, for sure.

Whether I give it or not, is another issue.

speedbird1973

Ollie

1) You have to discriminate when interview people - it's the whole point!!
2) Your link is to the race relations act?? what does this have to do with choosing 1 person over another? unless it's specifically race related, however this is a different debate.
3) Your examples of non employees being involved in ETs are all to do with people who've been employed by the company they're taking to the tribuneral at some point. Not clear on my part, however my point still stands

bendix

olly300 wrote: »

As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against people before you employ them even if you never actually do, while you employ them and after they have ceased working for you.

You can read the entire original race discrimination act here - http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2059995 look for "Discrimination by employers" , and can google for all the amendments and other acts.

In the first case you are not allowed to discriminate in recruiting and selecting people. However as I stated already the onus is on the candidate to prove that they were discriminated against which is not exactly an easy thing to do.

In the last incidence there are examples where an employee has won an ET for discrimination, or even just put in a grievance stating some form of discrimination then left that company's employment. The company then gives that employee a slanderous or libellous reference, which they are able to obtain from the potential new employer under the Data Protection Act who refuses to employ them due to the reference. In this case while the onus is on the ex-employee to prove they were discriminated against it's not as hard as now there is normally written evidence.

I personally know of a case where this happened. The reference was given over the phone, and the large company making the slanderous reference wrote detailed notes there as the large company who was getting the reference notes where less detailed but clearly showed the same thing. (I was personally shocked that people are so stupid.)

Writing "confidential" on written references doesn't mean someone will never see that reference as you can use the Data Protection Act to obtain them.

None of your links or examples have anything to do with the thread under debate.

I repeat - a potential employee CANNOT take a potential employer to the ET. There is no employment relationship. There never has been. Never will be.

If the personal feels they have been discriminated against and not got a job for unfair reasons (eg race) they can take it to a race relations board. That is a completely different issue.

woody01

Idiophreak wrote: »

Do you only ever do what you're obliged to?

I think it's good business etiquette for an interviewer to offer the candidate feedback as a matter of course. A good interviewer will take notes for this purpose, as well as for their own reference. You obviously don't, which is fine. I'm not sufficiently dimwitted to assume you're wrong because your opinion differs from my own.

Its not good business etiquette at all.
Its putting yourself in the firing line by telling someone something they don't want to hear.

I AM an employer, and i have a great team around me and this is because i am very careful about who i do and don't employ.

BTW...i do not think you are dimwitted. I do however think you are not in the real world sometimes by assuming that i have time to pander to people that are just plainly unsuitable.

Idiophreak

woody01 wrote: »

Its not good business etiquette at all.
Its putting yourself in the firing line by telling someone something they don't want to hear...

...BTW...i do not think you are dimwitted. I do however think you are not in the real world sometimes by assuming that i have time to pander to people that are just plainly unsuitable.

They clearly *do* want to hear it though, that's why they're asking. Clearly, saying "I thought you sucked" isn't overly helpful, but constructive criticism is appreciated. (I've only ever been turned down for a job once, so don't have a lot of experience of this, but I know they took a couple of minutes to go over the main reasons for their decision - and I improved in subsequent interviews as a result).

These people, whether unsuitable or not, have taken the time to pander to your request for an interview, to say you don't have 1 minute to give them a couple of bullets on their performance is pretty selfish. "Don't have time" is not the reason, it's "Can't be bothered to make time".

terra_ferma

Oh dear… one is away for a couple of days and look at what happens…

No, I don’t work in HR. Never said that.

I am appalled by the level of ignorance of the various Anti-discrimination Laws and how they apply to recruitment, including the fact that claims can be brought to Employment Tribunals. (and even more by the arrogance of rubbishing what I say without bothering to back anything up with evidence! :mad:).

My comments are not about the validity of the reasons for not giving someone a job, or the right of an employer to reject someone whose attitude does not fit with the rest of the team (as I said before I have done the same). They are simply about the fact that if an applicant feels that they have been discriminated against they can bring a claim (even if you know you have legitimate reasons for not giving them the job).
I'm also not saying this is right or wrong, just that it's the law and it can cost money if it's not taken into account during recruitment.
Regardless the outcome a claim is very expensive to defend, and the employer will need good evidence to win. I reiterate that ‘does not fit in, don’t know why’ is not going to help you win the case!


The basics:
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=746
“The employer has the legal responsibility to ensure that no unlawful discrimination occurs in the recruitment and selection process on the grounds of sex, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, and religion or belief. Equality of opportunity is an integral part of the recruitment and selection process, and to this end employers may offer training and encouragement to any under-represented groups.”


Examples of Employment Tribunal cases, principally to show that disgruntled unsuccessful applicants can bring claims (anything you wish to say Bendix?:rolleyes:).

http://www.eurolinkage.org/AgeConcern/Guidance-for-advisers-job-applicant-wins-age-discrimination-claim.asp
“A recent case in the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal shows how a job applicant can successfully claim age discrimination‚ using the reversal of the burden of proof under the regulations. Northern Ireland has its own age regulations‚ but they are almost identical to the regulations in force in England‚ Wales and Scotland….”
“..The employer argued that the decision to reject Mr McCoy had not been affected by his age‚ but that the candidates who had been successful had greater ‘enthusiasm and dynamism’. This was not enough to convince the tribunal‚ which found that the decision not to appoint Mr McCoy amounted to unlawful age discrimination.”

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/09/22/37337/rejected-white-police-applicant-wins-damages-in-race-discrimination.html
“Matt Powell, an IT professional, won £2,500 after he found out he was one of 108 applicants told they had been “randomly de-selected” from the recruitment process by Gloucestershire police…..”
It later emerged that nearly two-thirds of white men who applied to join the constabulary in the recruitment drive were turned down, whereas every ethnic minority candidate was invited for an assessment.
“…Clive Toomer, chairman of the tribunal, awarded Powell the money for ‘injury to feelings’ saying he was entitled to feel angry and distressed at the way he was treated.”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/405.html
(Very recent. Appeal, not decided yet as far as I know)

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409516&c=1
“A male academic has won a sex discrimination case against the University of Surrey.
An employment tribunal said the university had rejected psychologist David Gilbert for a lecturing job because he had brought a sex discrimination claim against a previous employer. Surrey has agreed to pay him £18,000 in compensation….”
“…..The pair said that Dr Gilbert had performed poorly at interview and that Professor Ogden had found him "arrogant and annoying". But the tribunal said Professor Ogden could provide no evidence of her assertion. It also drew an "adverse inference" from the fact that the two professors did not take notes during the interview…”

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/08/08/36733/corus-hotels-plc-v-woodward-eat-17-march-2006.html
(Damages awarded because sexist questions were asked at the interview)

If anyone else has evidence to back up what they wrote, I would (genuinely) welcome it and learn from it (otherwise I’m not going to respond and get into a tit-for-tat, sorry I have no time for that).

olly300

Thanks Terra-ferma for giving a long explanation.

I couldn't be bothered to go through every Discrimination Act and give examples which is why I stated:

You can read the entire original race discrimination act here - http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=2059995 look for "Discrimination by employers" , and can google for all the amendments and other acts.

It seems that people cannot be bothered to do a little bit of research themselves, and understand when as an employer your relationship with someone who applies for a position or leaves a position begins and ends.

terra_ferma

olly300 wrote: »

Thanks Terra-ferma for giving a long explanation.

I couldn't be bothered to go through every Discrimination Act and give examples which is why I stated:


It seems that people cannot be bothered to do a little bit of research themselves, and understand when as an employer your relationship with someone who applies for a position or leaves a position begins and ends.

You are sooooo right! (I had a little bit of time to spare...)

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

terra_ferma wrote: »

I'm surprised he was even told...
That would leave an employer open to all sorts of discrimination claims, maybe they thought he would have not ground for that?

complete internet forums !!!!...

"Team Fit" is a perfectly reasonable "excuse" to not employ someone as its not reason for discrimination..

When we interview someone we dont "like" its the cleanest reason you can legitimately give without just telling them they're a !!!!!! :beer:

olly300

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain wrote: »

complete internet forums !!!!...

"Team Fit" is a perfectly reasonable "excuse" to not employ someone as its not reason for discrimination..

When we interview someone we dont "like" its the cleanest reason you can legitimately give without just telling them they're a !!!!!! :beer:

That's how ETs have interpreted employers who refuse to give reasonable feedback and have interview notes.

It's known for some companies to make up notes and shred others if they are taken to an ET not that I'm suggesting anyone on this board is an dishonest employer or works for one............