Internal Job application rejected because of recent promotion

TELLIT01

It's pretty common for employers not to permit internal job hopping.  One company I worked for would not permit internal moves more than once a year.  Expecting to be approved to change jobs after 2 months in post is naive to say the least.  I would expect any potential manager to reject them as a suitable applicant even if the initial application was accepted.  Why would any manager want to risk a new appointee bailing out again after a couple of months?

Tealblue

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀

No it isn't - you're just over-reacting. That seems a perfectly logical  conclusion to draw based on the facts and avoids hurt feelings - or would have done had the reaction from OP's partner been more balanced.

Manxman_in_exile

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀...

Why do you automatically read it as a "nasty" comment?

I took the far more reasonable (and likely) view that the employer already knows who will get the job...

JReacher1

Tealblue said:

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀

No it isn't - you're just over-reacting. That seems a perfectly logical  conclusion to draw based on the facts and avoids hurt feelings - or would have done had the reaction from OP's partner been more balanced.

It’s not a logical conclusion at all.  I’m surprised that you agree with it to be honest. 

The reason for the rejection was given in the first post by the OP. You can’t apply for an internal position until after six months in your current position. That seems perfectly plausible. 

It is unnecessary to make up a scenario, based on zero facts stating that the OP’s partner wouldn’t get the job as they don’t have the skills for the role (even though the HR feedback was positive). 

JReacher1

Manxman_in_exile said:

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀...

Why do you automatically read it as a "nasty" comment?

I took the far more reasonable (and likely) view that the employer already knows who will get the job...

I don’t agree that it is more likely for an application to be rejected within a couple of days because the employer already knows who is getting the job. 

A far more reasonable view is that the OP’s partner was rejected very quickly because it fell foul of the company six month in a role policy. 

Like the other poster I’m surprised you what to read more than that into it!

steampowered

The law only prohibits discrimination on the basis of a "protected characteristic" - such as age, gender or race.

It is perfectly legal for employers to discriminate between candidates on the basis of criteria which are not "protected characteristics" - including characteristics such as how long the employee has been in their current job; and their skills/experience.

There is no legal claim here. This is actually a pretty common situation with many companies - most employers will expect you to stay in a role for 6 months minimum before considering promotion. It sounds like it is great that your husband is being ambitious so he should keep his eyes open, and apply for a promotion next time the opportunity comes up.

Marcon

JReacher1 said:

Tealblue said:

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀

No it isn't - you're just over-reacting. That seems a perfectly logical  conclusion to draw based on the facts and avoids hurt feelings - or would have done had the reaction from OP's partner been more balanced.

It’s not a logical conclusion at all.  I’m surprised that you agree with it to be honest. 

The reason for the rejection was given in the first post by the OP. You can’t apply for an internal position until after six months in your current position. That seems perfectly plausible. 

It is unnecessary to make up a scenario, based on zero facts stating that the OP’s partner wouldn’t get the job as they don’t have the skills for the role (even though the HR feedback was positive). 

What I actually said was 'Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.' I made no reference to the applicant's skills - no idea where you got that.

However, the scenario (as you like to call it) was far from made up. Any good HR director will be able to tell you that upsetting current employees is rarely a good idea if you want to keep them, and turning them down for an internal vacancy can often rock the boat. Enter a hitherto undeclared 'policy', which lets both sides off the hook with grace - and like any good policy, it can always be varied when circumstances dictate.

OP included reference to the fact that there was no disclaimer in the advertisement about the 6 month issue, so the point clearly bothered them. Far from being 'nasty', I was pointing out that HR thought he was worthy of a diplomatic response rather than a flat rejection. That being so, I don't think you need to ride to OP's rescue!

Manxman_in_exile

JReacher1 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀...

Why do you automatically read it as a "nasty" comment?

I took the far more reasonable (and likely) view that the employer already knows who will get the job...

I don’t agree that it is more likely for an application to be rejected within a couple of days because the employer already knows who is getting the job. 

A far more reasonable view is that the OP’s partner was rejected very quickly because it fell foul of the company six month in a role policy. 

Like the other poster I’m surprised you what to read more than that into it!

Eh?  Of course you can't agree with me on that point because I never said that was the case.  What I said was that my view of what Marcon had posted was a more likely and reasonable interpretation of what he meant rather than your view that it was "nasty".

I'm surprised you should read something into my post that was not there...

JReacher1

Manxman_in_exile said:

JReacher1 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀...

Why do you automatically read it as a "nasty" comment?

I took the far more reasonable (and likely) view that the employer already knows who will get the job...

I don’t agree that it is more likely for an application to be rejected within a couple of days because the employer already knows who is getting the job. 

A far more reasonable view is that the OP’s partner was rejected very quickly because it fell foul of the company six month in a role policy. 

Like the other poster I’m surprised you what to read more than that into it!

Eh?  Of course you can't agree with me on that point because I never said that was the case.  What I said was that my view of what Marcon had posted was a more likely and reasonable interpretation of what he meant rather than your view that it was "nasty".

I'm surprised you should read something into my post that was not there...

That was the exact thing you posted. 

At least delete your original comment so we can all pretend you never posted it 😂

JReacher1

Marcon said:

JReacher1 said:

Tealblue said:

JReacher1 said:

Marcon said:

valiumtina86 said:

HR rejected by partner's application on the ground that his latest promotion was too recent for him to move into a new role again so soon, and that the recommended time frame to do so would be at least 6 months. They said that the application was good otherwise.
Given that no disclaimer was given on job advertisement that his situation would make it unsuitable for applying, is there ground for a claim on the basis of unfair discrimination?

Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.

There’s no evidence that is the case and your suggestion is frankly just a bit nasty.  We are meant to be nice to new posters 😀

No it isn't - you're just over-reacting. That seems a perfectly logical  conclusion to draw based on the facts and avoids hurt feelings - or would have done had the reaction from OP's partner been more balanced.

It’s not a logical conclusion at all.  I’m surprised that you agree with it to be honest. 

The reason for the rejection was given in the first post by the OP. You can’t apply for an internal position until after six months in your current position. That seems perfectly plausible. 

It is unnecessary to make up a scenario, based on zero facts stating that the OP’s partner wouldn’t get the job as they don’t have the skills for the role (even though the HR feedback was positive). 

What I actually said was 'Sounds like HR have come up with a diplomatic way to turn down his application because they knew he wasn't going to get the job.' I made no reference to the applicant's skills - no idea where you got that.

However, the scenario (as you like to call it) was far from made up. Any good HR director will be able to tell you that upsetting current employees is rarely a good idea if you want to keep them, and turning them down for an internal vacancy can often rock the boat. Enter a hitherto undeclared 'policy', which lets both sides off the hook with grace - and like any good policy, it can always be varied when circumstances dictate.

OP included reference to the fact that there was no disclaimer in the advertisement about the 6 month issue, so the point clearly bothered them. Far from being 'nasty', I was pointing out that HR thought he was worthy of a diplomatic response rather than a flat rejection. That being so, I don't think you need to ride to OP's rescue!

No offense but you do post a lot of clap trap
I assume you have not had a varied work life but many companies have a policy that says you can't apply for a new job within a set period of obtaining a position.  That would be a standard company policy and it would not be put on the job advert.

Any good HR director would tell you that an internal applicant for a position they are eligible for should be interviewed for the position so that if unsuccessful feedback can be provided back to make the employee feel valued. 

You seem to believe a good HR director would advise to tell an internal applicant not suitable for the job that is a policy (that in reality doesn't exist) that says they can't apply for a job within 6 months.  As it would be very easy for the employee to confirm this is policy a lie it is a slightly ridiculous suggestion to think that they have made up a policy just to reject the OP's partner!  I worry if you think these actions are what a good HR director would advise what a bad one would do