Possible unfair interview during restructure process

Takeaway_Addict

determined_new_ms wrote: »

Hi I am asking for some general advice. Yesterday I found out I was not successful in my application for the post I have been doing for the last year as a FTC. When I was initially taken on I was told the reason it was a FTC was that is how they recruited staff because the company was to announce a restructure and also that is how they appointed staff at my level and above. I was told at the end of the year I would be converted to a perm contract. Bad advice and the person who recruited me no longer works for the company.

When the restructure was announced, and as my role was FTC the conditions for me were slightly different to those at risk with perm contracts. I had to wait for the first round of recruitment for my role and wasn't allowed to apply because as it was ring fenced for those at risk at my level or above. Fair enough, when no one was appointed the roles were advertised internally and I could express an interest. Following this meeting I had a supervision meeting with my acting manager the Head of Service who advised me it was her intention to confirm me in post once the restructure was implemented. She asked me if I was looking for other work, and at the time I was overwhelmed with work as I manage a large area, 20 members of staff and our department had a number of vacant posts including my senior. I told the HoS this and she said good she would keep me busy so I didn't apply for other work and leave.

There were 2 positions being recruited and two people, me and a colleague were interviewed. We are both doing the same role currently but in different areas of the South. I have been doing my role for just over a year, and have 7 years experience of management. There has never been an suggestion that my conduct or performance is anything other than of a high standard. My counterpart is currently seconded into the since January and this is her first experience of management.

The interview went well, out of 10 questions there were 2 areas that I am not expert in but answered as best as I could. Leaving the interview I felt confident. Following the interviews my counterpart and I debriefed and by and large a lot of the questions we answered in a similar vien.

Yesterday I was in a meeting with my counterpart and another and we had gone to lunch when I received my call to say I wasn't successful at the same time she received her call to say she had been offered the post. We were sitting at the table together. She was asked to keep this confidential and not tell me.

I feel that I have not had a fair process and the decision was made not based on the interview. I have contacted HR today and advised I am lodging a appeal of the decision.

I asked to be provided with copies of the interview notes. She was being very evasive saying this wasn't the usual practice and it seemed to me she was actively trying to dissuade me from this. However I reminded her under data protection I was entitled to see any written documents that relate to me. At this point she acknowledged I can make this request.

I have requested to have an independent review of the interview notes for myself and my counterpart to ensure due fairness has been applied. I have doubts that anyone in the company can be impartial for many reasons. And wonder who I can ask to do this as I do my trust the organisation or anyone in it at this point.

One of the reasons I am mistrusting of the organisation is a few months ago I had to instigate an investigation regarding one of my members of staff. I had to commission another manager at my level to conduct the investigation. This member of staff had a disciplinary 2 1/2 years ago and it was upheld. It is a very serious issue, I only have some information about the original disciplinary but it does seem like it was heavy handed and unfairly dealt with. There was a death of a customer (I work in supported housing) and the staff member was found to be negligent and received a final written warning. However there is also evidence to support the staff member who was very new to the organisation was raising her concerns with her superior and was not receiving the support that was necessary to address the serious concerns for this customer. When I was liaising with the HR consultant at the time she verbally told me to tell the investigating officer about the previous disciplinary but to do this verbally and not in email/writing as there would be an audit trail. The Disciplinary Procedure states after a year following a sanction records will no longer be held and would not be considered if there were to be a subsequent investigation.

I told the HR consultant this and she immediately became very defensive, was raising her voice at me, saying she had a witness in the room, she understood I was upset but my comments were inappropriate and she was ending the conversation. I am upset obviously but I was not acting upset, or saying anything other than my concerns and reasons for them.

Any thoughts & advice would be appreciated

I don't know why they would bother with your requests tbh, unless there is a contractual right to independant review (I'd be surprised).

Unless you have any thought that they discriminated against you in terms of gender, race or any legal variant then is there actually anything you can do?

Chalk it up and move on. And they can provide a bad reference, it just has to be factual.

FBaby

Have you had sight of their policy about the process for filling out positions during a restructure?

Are you sure staff on temporary contract don't have the same right than permanent staff? Are you sure if two posts are available for two people, that the rules are not that you should be slotted in without interviewing? Are you sure not giving you the job doesn't amount to redundancy?

lakes17

Are you sure staff on temporary contract don't have the same right than permanent staff? Are you sure if two posts are available for two people, that the rules are not that you should be slotted in without interviewing? Are you sure not giving you the job doesn't amount to redundancy?


I have been in post for 1 year (post 9) and I have been doing my role for just over a year (post 1)

The OP has already stated that they have only been their for 1yr so it doesn't amount to redundancy as you have to be there for 2yrs before being able to claim redundancy.

Paypeanuts

determined_new_ms wrote: »

That's not what I meant if that's how it read. I have been in post for 1 year and have 7 year's experience of management in this field. My counterpart is definitely not as confident as I am and I have this knowledge first hand from the people who interviewed and appointed me to my role - she was interviewed for my role a year ago when I did and was appointed. One of these people was our line manager who no longer works for the organisation. She appointed her in January.

I know for a fact she struggled with these questions also, and one gave an identical answer to me. The questions were around budget setting. I am responsible for setting the budget for a number of services within my remit. As does she. I have been doing this for the past year, but also have budget monitoring experience for several years. My counterpart has been doing this aspect of the role for 4 months and has received no support guidance or training.

As I say I know the interview was good, I am good in interviews - being either side of the panel, and you just know when an interview has gone good or not

I kind of feel that if you step back from this situation, you will find some clues to the answer to the question of why she was appointed and you weren't, in this post, and in post #11.

As for why they interviewed you if they didn't want you, well why do you think? You applied and on paper you fit the criteria. Sometimes you just have to go through the motions with people.

It is standard practice at the point of offering to one of two internal candidates to ask them to keep it confidential at the time of offering, to allow the other candidate to find out via feedback that they've not got the post, rather than find out by the rumour mill, by the way.

slightlyconfused1

The fact that your colleague was appointed to her post is irrelevant as you were not applying for the same post.

You were interviewed for a job, you were not successful. That is really the end of the story. No employer can be made to employ someone that they don't want.

I always think that in internal job vacancies the interview is the least important part of the process as it is about getting to know you. If you already work in the organisation, they already know you. As you are already doing this job on a ftc and they didn't just appoint you permanently as has been done before, then there were may have been some concerns prior to interview, which your interview did not alleviate.

KiKi

lakes17 wrote: »

Are you sure staff on temporary contract don't have the same right than permanent staff? Are you sure if two posts are available for two people, that the rules are not that you should be slotted in without interviewing? Are you sure not giving you the job doesn't amount to redundancy?


I have been in post for 1 year (post 9) and I have been doing my role for just over a year (post 1)

The OP has already stated that they have only been their for 1yr so it doesn't amount to redundancy as you have to be there for 2yrs before being able to claim redundancy.

Not quite. It *is* redundancy - you can be made redundant before two years' service. It's just that there's no redundancy pay and no unfair dismissal rights.

What would have been unfair is selecting someone on a perm contract over someone on a FTC *because* of their contract type. However, as they interviewed and decided on that basis, that doesn't apply.

Good luck finding another role, OP... you don't want to work for a company that makes you feel distrustful and unhappy anyway.

KiKi