At "high risk" but unsure if employer has gone about things correctly.

19lottie82

I don't agree with some of my scorings, no. I have relieved some independent advice and apparently if I have low scores in certain area then they should have ,add me aware of this previously, and given, the opportunity to improve these, which they didn't.

also, the bosses daughter who has been there a year and is essentially a receptionist, has been kept of while others with a technical admin background and years experience within the company have been told to leave.

No one seems to know if legally, they should have given us all the opportunity to apply for these new role?

Lisyloo...... What's the point? You may be happy for people to treat you however they like, with no regard for the rules and regulations they should be following, but I'm not. And I certainly don't think I been treated with dignity, based on my second paragraph.

I didn't say I wanted to keep my job, but if they haven't completed this whole process to the letter, then I'd like them to admit that.

I have a reference sorted, whatever happens.

getmore4less

19lottie82 wrote: »

No one seems to know if legally, they should have given us all the opportunity to apply for these new role?
.

There is no legal requirement to use an interview process EVER for a job. Companies can apoint whoever they want when they want, except when there are redundancies and maternity issues

With redundancy situations where there are people that no longer have positions where there is a suitable alternative roll available then there should be a selecton process for all those that are suitable.

The use of a scoring matrix is perfectly legal selection process.

Often prefered because it overcomes the prefered candidate catch all using interview, "they interviewed better".

19lottie82

so lets say everyone is scored in their current role (even those these may vary in knowledge / skills ect.) for a number of identical "new roles"

a receptionist, whose skills are basic, scores 71/100, but a technical administrator whose skills are higher and is far more knowledgeable, scores 70/100, so the receptionist gets the job, despite being of a lower skill set.

is that fair? (i hope that made sense!)

SeduLOUs

19lottie82 wrote: »

so lets say everyone is scored in their current role (even those these may vary in knowledge / skills ect.) for a number of identical "new roles"

a receptionist, whose skills are basic, scores 71/100, but a technical administrator whose skills are higher and is far more knowledgeable, scores 70/100, so the receptionist gets the job, despite being of a lower skill set.

is that fair? (i hope that made sense!)

They need to be able to justify it. It might be fair if the technical administrator's lower score is due to sickness absence, lateness or a whole host of other factors.

If you are the one with the lower score and believe your score has been calculated unfairly, then appeal against it.

getmore4less

19lottie82 wrote: »

so lets say everyone is scored in their current role (even those these may vary in knowledge / skills ect.) for a number of identical "new roles"

a receptionist, whose skills are basic, scores 71/100, but a technical administrator whose skills are higher and is far more knowledgeable, scores 70/100, so the receptionist gets the job, despite being of a lower skill set.

is that fair? (i hope that made sense!)

IMO the scoring should be against requirements for the suitable alternatives not the previous jobs, although in many cases some of the criteria will be generic(sick,attendance...).

What you will have more difficulty with is the weighting if an area you score lower is weighted heavier than those you score well that's tough.

19lottie82

The scoring is against everyone's current roles, not potential for the new ones. Sickness, absence, lateness eat isn't taken into account.

19lottie82

grimsalve wrote: »

so the whole team have been interviewed and assessed which I guess is similar to the scoring system your employer uses?

No one has been interviewed, only "scored".