NHS manager giving employee job without an interview?

Undervalued

Marcon said:

throughtheblue said:

Marcon said:

throughtheblue said:

What I don't understand is someone could be redeployed with more experience and longer service, with the less experienced staff assuming the other employees contract or being redeployed in a like for like post. 

I wonder at what point this policy conflicts with HR's discrimination policy. 

Hopefully HR will know enough about discrimination to be aware that what you're describing doesn't come under the heading of 'unlawful discrimination'. People do seem to love playing the 'discrimination' card at every opportunity, when often all that's happened is an employer has made a decision they don't like.

throughtheblue said:

What would the best route be to find out if this is above board, but also express concern with the fallout from it? 

Are you one of the disappointed would-be applicants? If so, a quiet word with the appropriate person - be that your line manager or HR - might be the way forward?

I'm not one of the would be applicants.

Ironically, I'm the most qualified and experienced in terms of years and additional training I have put myself through, but my application has never been considered due to my flexible working arrangement. It's fine for me to have flexible working in my current role, but I have been told I would need to return to normal hours for any promotion. I've tried to make peace with the decision best I can. I'm able to do a few specific jobs that no one within my banding can do, which is a reminder to maybe take my work elsewhere. 

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to let one of those who have been impacted by this situation pursue the matter if they wish to do so? 

throughtheblue said:

I don't want to throw the discrimination card around easily. The internal candidates have waited patiently for a trainee post to come up, and whilst waiting they've done what they can to show they are interested, and spent their own personal time shadowing people in the  post-trainee role. I didn't know if not interviewing people that could potentially be better suited is discrimination grounds based on promotion opportunities but after reading the 'redeployment policy' it is the wooliest thing I've ever read.  

That is not unlawful discrimination. It may be very poor management practice...

Exactly but it is amazing how many people seem unable to understand the difference.

What is complained about in this thread might breach the organisation's internal rules or policies but it is not unlawful.

Elliott.T123

throughtheblue said:

Ironically, I'm the most qualified and experienced in terms of years and additional training I have put myself through, but my application has never been considered due to my flexible working arrangement. It's fine for me to have flexible working in my current role, but I have been told I would need to return to normal hours for any promotion. I've tried to make peace with the decision best I can. I'm able to do a few specific jobs that no one within my banding can do, which is a reminder to maybe take my work elsewhere. 

I don't want to throw the discrimination card around easily. The internal candidates have waited patiently for a trainee post to come up, and whilst waiting they've done what they can to show they are interested, and spent their own personal time shadowing people in the  post-trainee role. I didn't know if not interviewing people that could potentially be better suited is discrimination grounds based on promotion opportunities but after reading the 'redeployment policy' it is the wooliest thing I've ever read.  

This does not constitute discrimination, at least not in the eyes of the law.

Unless the other individuals were passed for interview due to a protected characteristic (age, sex, race, religion, disability, maternity) then discrimination is not possible.

As an extreme example the line manager could turn round and say "We went with this individual because they suck up to me more than anyone else and therefor I like them the best" Is that a good way to run a business, no, is it legal, yes.

So unless you can prove that the other internal candidates weren't interviewed for one of the reasons mentioned above then everything is above board and legal (unfairness does not mean illegal) 

EnPointe

throughtheblue said:

DullGreyGuy said:

throughtheblue said:

I appreciate this might be a difficult question to answer and presume I'll need to seek further assistance to find out, but any advice is appreciated. 

In my department, there has been a 'trainee' post advertised which has quite a few internal applicants shortlisted for interviews. All the applicants apart from one are in permanent roles, with one person being in a temporary contract. The person who has the temporary contact was told that there contract wouldn't be extended due to cuts, so the manager has decided to 'redeploy' them into the trainee role. 

The employee has only been employed for 12 weeks, and the other potential candidates have been in the role for years and were looking forward to their opportunity to progress and have now been told it's being given to said employee. 

It seems that this was only made possible on the grounds of a technicality. Depending on who got the job, another post would've become available that the temp staff member would assume, which has happened previously. Even if this is legitimate, it's created tension within the department. 

What would the best route be to find out if this is above board, but also express concern with the fallout from it? 

In private businesses there is no requirement for jobs even to be advertised, you can freely hire whoever you want. The only issue would come if hiring was based on protected characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation etc). 

Some companies however decide to set HR policies on recruitment to create a fairer system even if they legally aren't required. Many require all roles to be advertised internally for a minimum period and external advertising is optional. 

At the end of the day though all of these things just give fake hope to people as if the manager has decided X is going to get the job then everyone else is really wasting their time giving lip service to a process. I probably was once the "X" as was promised a perm job coming out of a secondment but then HR said that wasn't allowed and the job had to be advertised, they did the bare minimum on that, only selected myself and one other candidate and unsurprisingly I got the job. 


I differentiate private companies because public entities aren't always in full control of their policies and in some areas higher powers set "fair" policies for all the entities to follow... can't claim to know if NHS have any specific hiring policies but your HR should be able to confirm. As said though, even if interviews should have happened it doesn't mean the end result would have been different. 

From an employee engagement perspective its a fairly crappy thing to do but the prospect of doing interviews is always a pain and so can be just a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

What I don't understand is someone could be redeployed with more experience and longer service, with the less experienced staff assuming the other employees contract or being redeployed in a like for like post. 

I wonder at what point this policy conflicts with HR's discrimination policy. 

The 'at risk'  employee is the Temp  , as the substantive  post holders  are not it seems at risk. 

in a situation where people are 'at risk'  the  risk pool are placed into vacancies first 

 what is the Discrimination here,  is there anyone who has been treated  less favourably  by  virtue of a Protected Characteristic?
 ( length of service  or 'experience'  - i.e. time in a particualr role  is not a protected characteristic )

EnPointe

TELLIT01 said:

Raise it with your union rep.  My assumption is that the manager has seen the potential in this person and doesn't want to lose them.  All the other applicants are already in permanent roles so although not being interviewed may be annoying, they have actually lost nothing.  The manager could just as easily have gone through the motions of interviewing everybody and still given the job to the same person.

or quite simply  it;s a case the person described asa temp by the OP  is  formally 'at risk' and therefore   subject to those provisions 

EnPointe

TELLIT01 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

I differentiate private companies because public entities aren't always in full control of their policies and in some areas higher powers set "fair" policies for all the entities to follow... can't claim to know if NHS have any specific hiring policies but your HR should be able to confirm. As said though, even if interviews should have happened it doesn't mean the end result would have been different. 

From an employee engagement perspective its a fairly crappy thing to do but the prospect of doing interviews is always a pain and so can be just a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Even in the public sector where they are required to advertise externally there is nothing to stop them just going through the motions.  Some years ago I applied for a job which required two very different skill sets and I suspect very few people had them both.  I did.  I got a letter thanking me for my application but that I hadn't been selected for interview.  For the only time in my life I called an HR department and asked them just one simple question "Can you deny that somebody internal had already been earmarked for the job, but you had to advertise externally anyway?".  The response of "I can't comment on that" I think spoke volumes.

If people are formally at risk  there is no requirement for vacancies to be advertised  except  within the Pool of  At-risk personnel 

an out of the blue 'recruitment freeze' can be a sign of an impending  restructure 

TELLIT01

'Potentially could be better suited'.  The person making the decision is the one who determines who is best suited and that doesn't just come down to the person with the most experience of doing a job.

cr1mson

If we have a vacancy we have to look at those on the redeployment list before we are allowed to advertise. Provided they match to 50% we then have to consider them and will then have a limited assessment, We then have to have a good reason to not pick them so this may be what has happenned.