Is this age discrimination...?

StJimmy121234

Following merger of my company with another I now have a colleague that does the same job as me. We both have 2 facets to our role and the company are splitting both our roles in 2 so that we are each responsible for 1 of the facets of the role.

There is one part of my role that I enjoy more- so naturally I want to apply for that new job. However, the essential criteria on the personal specification for this new job states that the employee must have a specific degree (which I don’t have) - or at least 5 years experience. As I’m 28 I don’t have 5 years experience in the specific role (due to 6 years at university studies). And whilst I don’t have the exact degree specified I have been doing this particular part of my current job successfully for 3 years. It feels to me like I’ve been set up to fail in applying for this job- as the other job that has been created does not ask for minimum experience.

Am I right in thinking that this is not fair? If so, what can I do (I don’t want to make things difficult between me and my employer as I’ll have to continue working at the company)

shortcrust

There’s no yes or no answer. An employer can set minimum experience criteria if they can justify it. The only way to ‘test’ the justification is at an employment tribunal and I suspect a five year minimum wouldn’t look unreasonable, especially as an alternative to a high level qualification.

If you don’t want to take them to an employment tribunal - or threaten to - there’s nothing you can do about it other than try to argue your case and get them to be flexible.

Blatchford

StJimmy121234 wrote: »

Following merger of my company with another I now have a colleague that does the same job as me. We both have 2 facets to our role and the company are splitting both our roles in 2 so that we are each responsible for 1 of the facets of the role.

There is one part of my role that I enjoy more- so naturally I want to apply for that new job. However, the essential criteria on the personal specification for this new job states that the employee must have a specific degree (which I don’t have) - or at least 5 years experience. As I’m 28 I don’t have 5 years experience in the specific role (due to 6 years at university studies). And whilst I don’t have the exact degree specified I have been doing this particular part of my current job successfully for 3 years. It feels to me like I’ve been set up to fail in applying for this job- as the other job that has been created does not ask for minimum experience.

Am I right in thinking that this is not fair? If so, what can I do (I don’t want to make things difficult between me and my employer as I’ll have to continue working at the company)

No, that isn't age discrimination.

phill99

How can it be age discrimination?

The job role has a person speification attached to it. The criteria set are those required to do the job. Just because you don't meet the criteria is hardly discrimination.

bartelbe

You have to remember that the best and brightest in this country do not go into HR. They will have copied and pasted a standard job spec, with no thought to whether it is appropriate.

This is even worse when it comes to technical posts. Most HR staff would struggle to wire a plug, so getting them to put together specs for technical roles is a joke. The worse I saw was one which required 5 years experience using a piece of software that didn't exist 5 years ago.

So I would find someone who actually understands the role and ask them if the 5 years experience is really needed. Especially considering you have been doing that part of the job for a years.

Blatchford

bartelbe wrote: »

You have to remember that the best and brightest in this country do not go into HR. They will have copied and pasted a standard job spec, with no thought to whether it is appropriate.

This is even worse when it comes to technical posts. Most HR staff would struggle to wire a plug, so getting them to put together specs for technical roles is a joke. The worse I saw was one which required 5 years experience using a piece of software that didn't exist 5 years ago.

So I would find someone who actually understands the role and ask them if the 5 years experience is really needed. Especially considering you have been doing that part of the job for a years.

The "best and the brightest" would know that HR do not write job descriptions in the first place - managers write them. At best HR might advise on aspects of fact or policy or principle, but they did not write job descriptions. You might find your advice more useful if you find somebody who works in HR and ask them what their job is. Because it isn't writing job descriptions.

There is a fairly good bet to be had that you have no knowledge of what it takes to work in HR, because if you did you would know that properly functional HR is a highly skilled and qualified role with a strong component of ongoing professional development.

TELLIT01

The OP is of an age where they potentially could have 5 years experience in the role so I don't see where age discrimination comes into it. The company has set a minimum qualification/experience level which applies to all applicants.

Manxman_in_exile

In the circumstances, I'd tell them you want to be considered for the job even if you don't have the "essential" degree or experience. Point to the fact you've been doing it successfully for x number of years or whatever. I've known people lacking "essential" requirements be appointed to posts and carrying them out satisfactorily (although that was in the NHS where recruitment can be "strange".)


What might concern me is that if they know you don't meet these essential criteria, they are signalling that they don't want you in that post. Or it might be an oversight and the new(?) manager following merger assumes that you have the qualifications etc.


I would tell them you are interested in the post, you've demonstrated you can do it, but that you're a bit surprised the essential requirements of the person spec. seem to exclude you. Should you take that at face value or is there some flexibility?


EDIT: I don't see it as age discrimination and I would on no account mention it!

Mistral001

You are in your 20's and you are complaining of age discrimination!

Wait until you get into your 50's and 60's and find that you are competing with people in their 30's for jobs.

Dox

StJimmy121234 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that this is not fair? If so, what can I do (I don’t want to make things difficult between me and my employer as I’ll have to continue working at the company)

It certainly could be classed as age discrimination if the employer can't justify the need for five years of experience. Quoting from ACAS's guide:

Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.

As you say, you don't want to make things difficult, so claiming unlawful discrimination isn't the way to go! I'd try a quiet word with the correct person (line manager, recruiter, HR or whoever), stressing how keen you are to do the job and giving clear, concrete examples of how you have demonstrated this in your current role.

eamon

To the OP. Apply for the role (if there is an application to be made). However be prepared to fail. Not because you didn't peform well, meet the criteria etc. But because the job is probably earmarked for your colleague. The job spec etc has likely been written by your new manager who came with the merger and he/she wants their own team. It happens, its not nice and there is little you can do about it.