Dont want tupe

Peelerfart

WOW OP I bet the much maligned public sector are pleased to have you on board.

to answer your question please read post #10 and good luck

fred7777

publicsectorworker wrote: »

don't management have to be professional and equal to everyone then.

No, of course not.

publicsectorworker

DUTR wrote: »

Because you get an interview if you were successful with the paper sift, you get the post if you were succesful at the interview.
Not sure why you don't understand that, once you pass a papersift then you can be invited for an interview.

I do understand that. But sifts are supposed to be based on whats on the form not management grudges

SarEl

publicsectorworker wrote: »

But sifts are supposed to be based on whats on the form not management grudges

They will be - on paper anyway. You are assuming otherwise and you are assuming that you can prove what is in their heads. Most experienced interviewers are past experts at making sure the scores - either at the initial sift or at interview - do what they need them to and are unassailably rationalised.

But you are still missing the point. If you could prove that the selection panel had a big note attached to your file saying "don't employ him, he has a disciplinary record", there is still nothing that you could do about this. It is not discrimination on a protected characteristic, and the employer can lawfully discriminate on any other grounds they want. Basically, if they don't want you because you are you - that's fine. They could equally say that they don't want you because you have a job and others are facing redundancy with no job to go to. That's also fine. The law doesn't require them to be fair - only lawful.

publicsectorworker

Emmzi wrote: »

As long as it isn't on grounds of race, disbaility or gender etc, they can just not like you.... no law against it.

this is wrong union says the have to sift against the job description and person specification. They cannot just go on previous things that have happened because these don't decide weather you can do the job. They are following this ip with hr.

SarEl

publicsectorworker wrote: »

this is wrong union says the have to sift against the job description and person specification. They cannot just go on previous things that have happened because these don't decide weather you can do the job. They are following this ip with hr.

No it isn't "wrong". The union is saying that this is the policy - you would, as I have already pointed out, have to prove that they haven't, and they will have evidence that they have! HR will be uninterested in your assumptions that you may not get an interview or a job because of your previous disciplinary record - they will only be interested in what the scoring says, and if the management have decided they don't want you, I can gaurantee you that the paperwork will say that there were better applications / interviews and the scoring will back that up.

publicsectorworker

SarEl wrote: »

They will be - on paper anyway. You are assuming otherwise and you are assuming that you can prove what is in their heads. Most experienced interviewers are past experts at making sure the scores - either at the initial sift or at interview - do what they need them to and are unassailably rationalised.

But you are still missing the point. If you could prove that the selection panel had a big note attached to your file saying "don't employ him, he has a disciplinary record", there is still nothing that you could do about this. It is not discrimination on a protected characteristic, and the employer can lawfully discriminate on any other grounds they want. Basically, if they don't want you because you are you - that's fine. They could equally say that they don't want you because you have a job and others are facing redundancy with no job to go to. That's also fine. The law doesn't require them to be fair - only lawful.

this is wrong. The guidance notes that come with the application form say Candidates will be short listed solely on the information supplied in the application form, measured against the person specification.
This is being taken up with hr as this has not happened.

publicsectorworker

SarEl wrote: »

No it isn't "wrong". The union is saying that this is the policy - you would, as I have already pointed out, have to prove that they haven't, and they will have evidence that they have! HR will be uninterested in your assumptions that you may not get an interview or a job because of your previous disciplinary record - they will only be interested in what the scoring says, and if the management have decided they don't want you, I can gaurantee you that the paperwork will say that there were better applications / interviews and the scoring will back that up.

It is hr policy not union policy. What they don't know is I have a copy of a friend application who got an interview and he has less information and doesnt meet all the criteria but got an interview. Union say selection can be investigated and checked to see if procedure has been followed and there's no way my application isn't better than the copy of someone else's I have.

zzzLazyDaisy

That may be internal policy but a failure to follow it would not give rise to any form of legal redress on its own. There would have to be some other unlawful discriminatory element as well. So basically, you may be right, but apart from getting your union involved (which you have done) and possibly commencing a grievance, there isn't much you can do. Even if you force their hand and get an interview, you can be pretty certain that if they don't wish to give you a job, they won't and there won't be much you can do about it.

To be honest, and apologies for sounding harsh, they are probably pleased to see you leave under TUPE.

It is important that you understand that TUPE is not a redundancy situation, so your employer has no duty to offer you alternative employment. Your job continues to exist with the new employer, with your continuity of service protected, together with your existing terms and conditions (for the time being at least).

You may find it a bit of a culture shock working in a commercial environment though!

mcfisco

I've rejected many applicants - internal and external - because I didn't like them, regardless of their application/CV details
Usually my notes would say something a bit more diplomatic; like .. "I didn't believe they would fit in well with the team" etc.

It's a subjective assessment but one that I was trusted to make, I don't ever recall being over-ruled