Advice needed please

Topman9880

100% and not withdrawn no.

pinkshoes

I would write to them and ask them to confirm that the reason for your job offer being withdrawn is that they are having a recruitment freeze.

If they respond saying this is correct I would then question why they have employed two of her previous colleagues just 24 hours before they pulled her job offer. Give then 2 working days to respond.

Could it be the other to were better than her but applied after?


PS - she would HAVE been employed, not would of...

[Deleted User]

pinkshoes wrote: »

Could it be the other to were better than her but applied after?

A smart employer would carry on looking and should have kept the person dangling with the whole the recuitment process is still ongoing if they really were not sure on someone/able to make an offer. So I hope it does backfire on someone if the positions are the same...

Much nicer to send someone a 'the recuitment process is still ongoing with no decision reached' whilst interviews are being scheduled with others or more time is needed to decide, rather then the wrongful yes or no.

Blatchford

Deleted%20User wrote: »

A smart employer would carry on looking and should have kept the person dangling with the whole the recuitment process is still ongoing if they really were not sure on someone/able to make an offer.

What? A smart employer gets their recruitment right the first time. You clearly don't have a clue about smart employers or recruitment. I can only hope you aren't an employer. Because if this is how you would act, you are the worst kind of employer.

KatrinaWaves

Blatchford wrote: »

What? A smart employer gets their recruitment right the first time. You clearly don't have a clue about smart employers or recruitment. I can only hope you aren't an employer. Because if this is how you would act, you are the worst kind of employer.

They’re not an employer, apparently change employment every 5 minutes. They have however had every job scenario going, as you will soon find out. Or a friend has. Most are totally irrelevant to the point of utterly insane. I’d hit the ignore button but I’m a glutton for punishment.

Crazy_Jamie

Blatchford wrote: »

On the other hand, you might want to consider what the consequences of legal action might be. Discrimination claims are hard to win and very stressful, something your wife will have to deal with whilst pregnant/ being a new mum. The legal system is unforgiving and "I'm pregnant / I'm coping with a new born" cuts no ice.

Not in terms of making it an easier to actually win the claim, but Tribunals can and do make adjustments to ensure that litigants aren't disadvantages by pregnancy, disability and so on, both in terms of directions that are made and adjustments at hearings. In cases like this where the claimant is a new mother, it's common for the timetable in terms of directions to be lengthened, and adjustments at trial to be made in terms of things like additional breaks (such as for breastfeeding) if needed.

That said, the OP will have three months to bring a discrimination claim from the date of the act of discrimination, and if she does so she will therefore be giving birth and going through those initial stages of motherhood with a Tribunal claim in the background. The fact that the Tribunal will likely will accommodate that in terms of procedure doesn't stop there being a claim ongoing, which in itself brings stress and pressure that any new mother would no doubt rather do without. On that basis the warning generally about the difficulty and stress of bringing a Tribunal claim is a perfectly valid one.

Blatchford wrote:

Despite headline figures, discrimination claims just don't net the kind of money that people think they do. Tribunals mainly recompense loss. What is her loss? She won't be entitled to SMP, so in a short period of time she would receive no wages or payments from the employer anyway (which is a pretty good argument for the employer to put to suggest they didn't discriminate, as they wouldn't have to pay for any maternity leave she took). So if she won, or was offered some kind of settlement, she can't expect much.

The only thing to add to this is that she would of course be entitled to damages for injury to feelings. Taking a massive punt bearing in mind we know so little about the effects of this on the OP's partner (and that, so recent case law tells us, is the main factor), the circumstances that we know probably put this towards the mid to high end of the lower Vento Bracket. But beyond that the warning regarding damages is perfectly valid. I think there is some chance that the Tribunal would be willing to award something in the way of loss of earnings on the assumption that the OP's partner would have returned to work with the right evidence, but that is far from a given, and the warning generally about levels of compensation is quite right. Claimants so often go into Tribunal claims (particularly discrimination) thinking that they'll come away with huge sums, and that just isn't the case.

Beyond those two relatively minor points of clarification, I entirely agree with Blatchford's general caution. No one wants an employer to get away with discriminatory conduct, but it is important to stay practical in situations like this rather than being driven blindly by principle. And in that regard the warnings about the strength of the evidence and the practical difficulties are well made.

Topman9880

Thank you for input Jamie, much appreciated.

It's not that either of the other people are better/worse than my partner for the role - that's not be taking her side. Both the other roles are at different garages, where they were also advertising for roles (recruitment freeze!?!?). So these jobs are both in different places in their group.

We've replied to the original email to give try and the impression that we won't take this lying down. And we know there have been 2 job offers during this recruitment freeze.

We've tried to keep it quite friendly really with the main hope he might think, it's not worth the risk of going down this root.

Will update

Blatchford

Topman9880 wrote: »

It's not that either of the other people are better/worse than my partner for the role - that's not be taking her side. Both the other roles are at different garages, where they were also advertising for roles (recruitment freeze!?!?). So these jobs are both in different places in their group.

Ah, you did not say that. It is entirely possible to have a stop on recruitment at one location and not at others. That information entirely sinks your argument.

Topman9880

No, he has said in his original email that the whole group are having a freeze on recruitment.

Topman9880

I don't believe but that plan has worked and he has done a U-turn.

'Good morning xxxxxx, I have spoken to the General Manager, xxxxxxxx and it transpires you are right. I will ask xxxx to get in touch to make arrangements for tomorrow. Sorry about the confusion. regards'

Happy with out come!

Thank you for help and input