Appointment made without interview

Moneybox

An internal promotion was advistised and application required a letter. 3 staff submitted letters with the understanding that this was to be followed by interview for the post.

The post was given to 1 of the staff. No interview took place.

As far as I can acertain they have not broken an employment law but could be challenged with an E.T. Claim of discrimination as have not treated the 2 other staff fairly in considering the appointment.

The person appointed is capable of the role but I am concerned of the process.

Do the other two staff have grounds for an E.T claim of discrimination?

Takeaway_Addict

Moneybox wrote: »

An internal promotion was advistised and application required a letter. 3 staff submitted letters with the understanding that this was to be followed by interview for the post.

The post was given to 1 of the staff. No interview took place.

As far as I can acertain they have not broken an employment law but could be challenged with an E.T. Claim of discrimination as have not treated the 2 other staff fairly in considering the appointment.

The person appointed is capable of the role but I am concerned of the process.

Do the other two staff have grounds for an E.T claim of discrimination?

Unless the discrimination is due to a protected characteristic such as gender or race then simply no. The employer has no duty to do interviews etc.

ohreally

What does the recruitment policy refer to?

xapprenticex

Yeah, if staff #2 didnt get it because of the colour of his skin and staff #3 didnt get it because she is Christian then yeah, they have a very strong case.

General_Grant

Discrimination is not unlawful. They have to discriminate in order to decide whom to appoint - even if there were only one applicant they would have to discriminate on the basis of whether to appoint at all.

Unlawful discrimination is only where a decision is on the basis of a protected characteristic.

If there is an organisational recruitment policy which says candidates have to be interviewed then someone who applied could, I suppose, raise a grievance with their employer, following the grievance procedures. But I doubt that it would get them anywhere.

theoretica

If they were sure which of the three they wanted for the job, going through the motions of interviews sounds like a waste of everyone's time. The employer already knows more about the applicants than they would find out in most interviews.

jobbingmusician

Also, depending on the post, they might find out far more from a letter than from an interview. (Can you tell that I am fed up with working with illiterate staff? )

Moneybox

Thank you. The staff concerned were asked to show an interest in the post by letter. One of the staff this concerns to is at the end of her maternity leave and is not known by the new management. Would you still advise them to leave the matter or challenge. Opportunities for promotion are rare with this company.

Undervalued

Moneybox wrote: »

Thank you. The staff concerned were asked to show an interest in the post by letter. One of the staff this concerns to is at the end of her maternity leave and is not known by the new management. Would you still advise them to leave the matter or challenge. Opportunities for promotion are rare with this company.

Leave it.

The maternity aspect is irrelevant. She is entitled to her job back if she wishes to return or, if that is no longer available, a suitable alternative. That is all. It doesn't give her any additional rights.

As others have said there is no right to a promotion and the firm can appoint whoever they please, with or without interview, providing they don't discriminate on one of the few legally protected grounds (race, gender, religion etc).

phill99

This sounds like sour grapes. Go down the ET route at your peril. Do that and you will suddenly find all of your work comes under scrutiny as they try and amass evidence against you to give you the big elbow.

molerat

theoretica wrote: »

If they were sure which of the three they wanted for the job, going through the motions of interviews sounds like a waste of everyone's time.

At least they didn't go to interview unlike with local government posts