Discrimination case??

Mersey_2

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

I do wonder at times as to why people believe certain things are just a given to them

Like the brother in law? - I agree, it's wrong.

Mersey_2

ady19792 wrote: »

I spoke to his work colleague (this manager is not liked very much by his staff, apparantly he is very lazy, gives himself the best hours and overtime) and when I said he has become a bit distant he informed me that the managers brother in law was just made redundant and this person showed me emails in the deleted folder of a laptop (which is shared on site) from the manager to a senior manager saying "give my brother in law the job" and "send me a copy of the questions that he will be asked in interview"

The brother in law with zero experience has got the job

The emails shown to me was in confidence and the person showing them to me was worried about repercussions and said I cannot give you a copy.
The manager in question has 40 years service so

If you had a printout or had that email saved somewhere it could be gold dust, but otherwise there's little you could do - unless that person or someone else is willing to print out the email and do the right thing by sending it to HR/ a Director under the whistleblowing policy. [Anonymously if need be as TBagpuss suggests - as IT should be able to view/retrieve that email for HR]


I recall a CEO of a law firm sending the opposite sort of email to a Partner: "We need to get rid of xxxxxx (his secretary)"


She read and printed the email - as she had permission to access the emails for the Partner she worked for - and promptly had a job guaranteed for life should she want it [as any dismissal could then have been actionable].


The only other potential grievance others might want to raise is pay (given the brother-in-law has zero experience).

aife

What would happen if you kicked up a fuss and got the job ?
You'd be working for a manager you've been told is lazy and unfair and who would now hate you for getting him in trouble and probably putting his brother in law out of a job.
Your new colleagues probably won't think much of you either if you betray their confidence and bring up the emails.
Are things really bad at your current job ? Otherwise I'm thinking you have a job , b in l has been made redundant , let it go
And you don't know he was given preferential treatment , he might just have really impressed them at interview (though I'm sure his personal link helped a bit)

Undervalued

Mersey wrote: »

If you had a printout or had that email saved somewhere it could be gold dust, but otherwise there's little you could do - unless that person or someone else is willing to print out the email and do the right thing by sending it to HR/ a Director under the whistleblowing policy. [Anonymously if need be as TBagpuss suggests - as IT should be able to view/retrieve that email for HR]


I recall a CEO of a law firm sending the opposite sort of email to a Partner: "We need to get rid of xxxxxx (his secretary)"


She read and printed the email - as she had permission to access the emails for the Partner she worked for - and promptly had a job guaranteed for life should she want it [as any dismissal could then have been actionable].


The only other potential grievance others might want to raise is pay (given the brother-in-law has zero experience).

How is it going to be "gold dust"?

It may well get the manager into trouble and possibly even dismissed but nothing the OP has said suggests it proves unlawful discrimination.

Giving the job to the brother in law, regardless on being less qualified, is not unlawful unless it could be shown that the actual reason is because he is male / gay / of a particular faith etc.

It seems to me it is quite different to your legal secretary example where the email could be evidence of an intention to unfairly dismiss.

sangie595

Undervalued wrote: »

How is it going to be "gold dust"?

It may well get the manager into trouble and possibly even dismissed but nothing the OP has said suggests it proves unlawful discrimination.

Giving the job to the brother in law, regardless on being less qualified, is not unlawful unless it could be shown that the actual reason is because he is male / gay / of a particular faith etc.

It seems to me it is quite different to your legal secretary example where the email could be evidence of an intention to unfairly dismiss.

Quite. And even in the supposed case it does also depend on context as to the degree to which such an email may matter. I recall some posts here from a legal Secretary who appeared to believe that shouting at, swearing a, and being generally rude to the clients was not a good cause to dismiss her. In such a context, I can quite imagine a similar email, sent with the expectation of privacy, might have gone out; and tribunals are not idiots - they recognise that in private people may say things that, in a context, are understandable. It would not constitute irrevocable intent to unfairly dismiss - a tribunal would look at the whole situation, and that would include the strength of the evidence against the individual.

But as you say, all the email in question here says is something that is not unlawful anyway - and actually, there is no evidence that it was acted upon by the recipient. In fact, given the fact that it seems everyone has access to this email account ( you can't have access to a deleted mail folder unless you have access to the mail folder) then there is no evidence that this person actually ever sent the email. It could just as easily have been someone else trying to stitch him up. Which is certainly what he will say anyway, if he has any sense.

TBagpuss

And even if it were sent, there is no evidence that the recipient acted on it and provided the questions

Mersey_2

Undervalued wrote: »

How is it going to be "gold dust"?

It presumably would get the interview process re-run with new questions and the OP may then get the job.


In fact if after the email was revealed to HR, it's unlikely - from what has been said - that the brother-in-law would then subsequently get the job unaided.


Or if he did at least then the OP would have no reason to raise a grievance.