Not offered interview by NHS despite meeting all criteria for Guaranteed Interview Scheme

DontBringBertie

shortcrust wrote: »

You talk as if it's the universal experience rather than your personal experience. With shoulders like that you should open a chip shop!

People who are turned down for jobs are turned down because there is a better applicant, not because employers are pantomime villains who want to screw you over.

I love it when people who get turned down for a job act as if they know the experience and qualifications of all the other applicants.

How could you possibly know who else applied?

Undervalued

DontBringBertie wrote: »

I love it when people who get turned down for a job act as if they know the experience and qualifications of all the other applicants.

How could you possibly know who else applied?

Quite!

Plus, there is no law that says an employer has to choose the best qualified or most experienced candidate. Apart from unlawful discrimination, on a handful of legally protected grounds, the employer can choose who they want using any other criteria they please.

VfM4meplse

sangie595 wrote: »

Your query is unclear. I'm not aware how a self-declaration comes back to bite someone. Do you mean where an employer considers someone not disabled? And what is illegal? If someone claims a disability falsely then taking action against them isn't illegal. Nor unlawful either, because this is civil law, not criminal law.

Your question is too general to answer meaningfully.

No, I mean an employer finding alternative grounds for dismissal when its unreliability due to the disability that is the ulterior motive. We're getting into tribunal territiry here.

Undervalued

VfM4meplse wrote: »

No, I mean an employer finding alternative grounds for dismissal when its unreliability due to the disability that is the ulterior motive. We're getting into tribunal territiry here.

Only if a "reasonable adjustment" would have allowed the disabled person to do the job satisfactorily and the employer refused to make the adjustment.

"Unreliability", even due to a disability, could be a valid reason for dismissal under some circumstances. It all come down to whether a reasonable adjustment is sufficient. Generally most reputable larger employers actually do more than the law would require of them in this respect.

VfM4meplse

Undervalued wrote: »

Only if a "reasonable adjustment" would have allowed the disabled person to do the job satisfactorily and the employer refused to make the adjustment.

"Unreliability", even due to a disability, could be a valid reason for dismissal under some circumstances. It all come down to whether a reasonable adjustment is sufficient. Generally most reputable larger employers actually do more than the law would require of them in this respect.

I'm aware that large corporates do this because they have more to lose both reputationally and ultimately financially. Generally their HR processes are watertight whether the service is in-house or outsourced.

I think that things are often different in the public sector because the service is so fragmented and reliant on the actions of people with varying experiences. The reality is that line managers are also under huge pressure to pick up the slack and perceive that someone is not pulling their weight. Nor are they given proactive support in advance of taking up people-management roles. This is unlikely to change given that the public would like to see more money spent on healthcare they can see than investment into management!

Its not something I am going to solve but its useful to have a sense of the lay of the land.

elsien

VfM4meplse wrote: »

No, I mean an employer finding alternative grounds for dismissal when its unreliability due to the disability that is the ulterior motive. We're getting into tribunal territiry here.

I can quote a job applicant who stated on his health form that he was fully fit to carry out the job as described. He omitted to mention (given the job required the safe use of hoists and two fully functioning arms) that he had lost the movement in one arm. And did not appear to see the issue when this was pointed out to him. He has probably gone away telling everyone how unfairly treated he was - there was no way of making adjustments that meant he could ever have carried out the role.

zsolmanz

This thread has gone rather off tangent.

The GIS scheme requires the employer to interview any suitable candidate so long as their application satisfies the essential requirements.

That means the recruiter should be offering an interview in spite of any of the following:
- Overqualification
- Multiple degrees
- Unusual employment history
- None of the desirable requirements
- Millions of better candidates
Etc. Etc.

As for the suggestion that declaring oneself disabled is the same as declaring oneself unfit for employment... That's just ridiculous.

Since the OP's already been excluded from the interview, I see no negatives with doing everything possible to find out what needs to improve on the application.
If they're not replying to emails, why the hell not start sending FOIs - at the very least it may make the hospital start taking their responsibilities under GIS more seriously.

sangie595

zsolmanz wrote: »

This thread has gone rather off tangent.

The GIS scheme requires the employer to interview any suitable candidate so long as their application satisfies the essential requirements.

That means the recruiter should be offering an interview in spite of any of the following:
- Overqualification
- Multiple degrees
- Unusual employment history
- None of the desirable requirements
- Millions of better candidates
Etc. Etc.

As for the suggestion that declaring oneself disabled is the same as declaring oneself unfit for employment... That's just ridiculous.

Since the OP's already been excluded from the interview, I see no negatives with doing everything possible to find out what needs to improve on the application.
If they're not replying to emails, why the hell not start sending FOIs - at the very least it may make the hospital start taking their responsibilities under GIS more seriously.

Well maybe because a FOI isn't going to be getting anyone anywhere? Well, except for convincing them that if the GIS scheme is so much trouble they may as well dump the VOLUNTARY scheme.

Nobody said that disability equates to unfitness. And you may not be able to see the negatives in creating a fuss. I'm sure more experienced posters will though.

I recently had a feedback request from a disabled candidate who was complaining about not getting an interview despite meeting all the rental criteria. He was correct in all respects except one - he barely meet three out of ten essential criteria. But he was correct about not getting an interview.

Assumptions that you met the criteria are not the same thing as meeting them...

zsolmanz

I recently had a feedback request

Well I guess if you responded to that feedback request then your candidate has no need to push further for feedback do they?

And sure, the scheme is voluntary, but once you've advertised it you're on shaky ground if you just pick and choose:

An employer is not legally required to meet the commitments of the Disability Confident scheme. However, it is arguable that it would be unlawful direct discrimination contrary to the Equality Act if the employer offers disabled people a guaranteed interview for a particular post, but refuses to give an interview to a particular disabled person who meets the minimum criteria for the job.

Even ignoring the legality of it, it's pretty reprehensible to swan about claiming GIS and then just rod off disabled candidates because you feel like it.

Of course, if they don't meet the minimum requirements then so be it - but the OP in this thread clearly thinks they've met the minimums, so either they're off their rocker or the job description is worded poorly.

(And since you have no understanding of who or what I am except my MSE profile, I can only presume your judgement of my "experience" is based on my post count on this forum - in which case I wonder why anyone trusted you with recruitment)

sangie595

zsolmanz wrote: »

Well I guess if you responded to that feedback request then your candidate has no need to push further for feedback do they?
Nobody is entitled to feedback. Yes, I gave it. I was entitled to ignore the request too, or simply say that they did not meet the criteria. Generally though, I refuse feedback now, as does the organisation generally, because it's more trouble than it's worth.
And sure, the scheme is voluntary, but once you've advertised it you're on shaky ground if you just pick and choose: Really? What's your legal basis for that assertion? It makes it more likely that someone will win a tribunal by claiming "i was discriminated against in recruitment, but I haven't got a shred of evidence to support that claim"!? I think not...



Even ignoring the legality of it, it's pretty reprehensible to swan about claiming GIS and then just rod off disabled candidates because you feel like it. That's an evidence based assertion, is it? You know that happened? No? Thought not.

Of course, if they don't meet the minimum requirements then so be it - but the OP in this thread clearly thinks they've met the minimums, so either they're off their rocker or the job description is worded poorly. Or their application wasn't as good as they think! Or they didn't meet some of the criteria? Or they are rubbish at expressing how they met a criteria?....

(And since you have no understanding of who or what I am except my MSE profile, I can only presume your judgement of my "experience" is based on my post count on this forum - in which case I wonder why anyone trusted you with recruitment)

I didn't read your profile, I still haven't, and I won't be doing so. My comment about your lack of experience was, and subsequently remains, based on facts and evidence - your advice is somewhere between poor and wrong.

As for trusting my judgement on recruiting, that's funny. At least I know how to do it and what the law does and doesn't say about it, and I guarantee that I deal with more employment law than you can imagine existing.....