Met role criteria but didn't get an interview

Miso_Pretty

Evening all,

Not too sure that anyone will be able to help with this one but worth a shot.

3yrs ago I was made redundant from a major rail company. I had worked there for 16yrs, during that time worked solely within the same field of expertise. I started out as a clerk and was promoted to supervisor and then manager. Despite my best efforts to remain at the company during my redundancy notice period I had to unfortunately accept the redundancy but did not leave on bad terms.
It was just that a lot of jobs were relocating from Scotland to England (not mine) and so there was a lack of vacancies for me to apply for.

Anyway, fast forward 3yrs and they recently advertised for clerk positions which was the job that I previously held, supervised and managed. Knowing that I meet all the criteria for the role, I applied but was a little dismayed to get a reply stating that 'All applications were reviewed against role specific criteria. Unfortunately on this occasion others have been identified as a closer match for this role and we will not be taking your application any further.'

I could not have meet all the role specific criteria more if I tried. All I would need is a wee refresher course of not even a week and then I would be good to go. I don't know who, other than those presently doing the job, who could be more closer to a match for this role than myself.

That said, I'm not that fussed.
However I am curious if anyone has been in this situation and what, if any, action they took or if anyone has any idea on whether this is worth pursuing to ascertain why I didn't meet the role specific criteria.
They have provided a number to call to query their response which I might do, if only to find out the real reason I didn't even, at least, get an interview.

Thanks in advance
Nicole

nimbo

When at the NHS we had 275 applicants for what was originally 1 job, and then became two.

They had to be really harsh when shortlisting. Half the applicants met the criteria, but they still had to whittle it down to 8 to interview. They then had to nit pick to whittle it down - spelling mistakes were weeded out, people who had abbreviated things...

It was a massive task - it may just have been that there were people who were applying, that had been doing the job a few months ago, who may not have needed the weeks retrain...

If you want to ask you could, but they may not be able to remember your application if there were too many...

Takeaway_Addict

Some companies just don't hire people they have had previously.

Southend1

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Some companies just don't hire people they have had previously.

I wonder why? They could save a fortune on training.

Takeaway_Addict

Southend1 wrote: »

I wonder why? They could save a fortune on training.

I guess the belief is that if the employee left then they felt the company wasn't worth working for and as such if they come back they would be looking to leave again fairly sharpish.

Regards redundancy unless the whole department or company are made redundant people are made redundant for a reason so the company may just not want them back.

Daedalus

Clerk would be entry level role? For a railway company which are well known for being good employers, generally.

Chances are they had many many applicants and operated the first past the post system. Get 10 or some applicants who meet the criteria and then stop without reading anymore. It takes a long time to read CVs and even longer to start comparing them. Even if you are more suitable, if you miss the cut off you probably never even got looked at.

phill99

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Regards redundancy unless the whole department or company are made redundant people are made redundant for a reason so the company may just not want them back.

No. You are completely wrong. People are not made redundant. Posts are made redundant.

Miso_Pretty

Southend1 wrote: »

I wonder why? They could save a fortune on training.

Exactly. I could start Monday and be ready to work full time before Friday.

As an ex employee in this role and manager recruiting for this role, previously I have had to train people for up to 6 months and even then some do not pass out, decide they are not cut out for this kind of job, leave etc... so I cannot fathom why I would not fit the criteria of this job.

Especially since they will be coming into training during Autumn/Winter, which for anyone who has/is working for a Rail Company knows, is a horrific period of the year. Not many new recruits have made it through this time of year hence why they are recruiting now, because the previous recruits are leaving before they have deal with it.

ammiLy

It might be because you applied for a position below your current qualification. The recruiters might see you as a short-term employee who will up and go as soon as a better job is available as you have all skills, experience etc. If it bothers you that much, just call them, otherwise it's not worth your time.

Miso_Pretty

Daedalus wrote: »

Clerk would be entry level role? For a railway company which are well known for being good employers, generally.

Chances are they had many many applicants and operated the first past the post system. Get 10 or some applicants who meet the criteria and then stop without reading anymore. It takes a long time to read CVs and even longer to start comparing them. Even if you are more suitable, if you miss the cut off you probably never even got looked at.

I started as a Trust Clerk grade 3 (12,000) in 1995. The job role has not evolved that much except to include the use of up to date technology, to be more stringent in checking for delay causation and job title change. So it is now a Train Delay Attributer grade 5? (32,000). I question the grade because there has been a leap in salary (obvious aside). As a manager to the Train Delay Attributers they are now not that far removed, pay wise, to what I was previously on.

I think what some previous poster's are missing the point on is,
from 1995 I was appointed to the role that I recently (thread is about) applied for. When I was made redundant I was manager to the role that I applied for. I meet all the criteria required for this role.

Surely if you get an applicant that states last employment is related to that company and that role, you would expect them to make the cut.

NR made me redundant by reducing a job from 2 posts to 1.
At the time there was no available positions/vacancies for me to apply for except signaller posts. I did take a signaller assessment and passed at the highest level meaning that I could apply for posts in Signalling centres as opposed to signal boxes. Hard to get a job when there is no vacancies. So redundancy it was.

Again my query is, has anyone been in this position of previously working for a company in a specific role. Said specific role then comes up as a vacancy and although they can meet all the criteria and can competently do the role, they do not get to interview stage. Where or what can you do from there on is my question?

I'm not that fussed but just curious to know if anyone else has experienced this. I left on good terms albeit on redundancy but I certainly have no reason to believe that my 'cards were marked' to prevent a return to the company. There hasn't been an opportunity to do so until now.

Savvy_Sue

Miso_Pretty wrote: »

I meet all the criteria required for this role.

Surely if you get an applicant that states last employment is related to that company and that role, you would expect them to make the cut.

I'd only expect them to make the cut if their application made it clear that they met the requirements of the job description and the person spec. So, did your application take each point in turn and say - perhaps repetitively - something like "in my previous role of X with Y company, I investigated delays and devised ways of preventing them" - or whatever?

Or did you rely on the fact that you'd been an XYZ with this company before, so surely they know what you're capable of?