Unfair recruitment process or just bad form on employers part?

LegacyUser

Looking for some views on this as people I know all tell me I would definately have grounds to take my company up on this, but I feel they might just be trying to soften the blow a bit for me and I'm not the most clued up person when it comes to rights and that...
(Bear with me, this will turn into a long post! Just want to be as clear as possible!)

So, bit of background info first...I work in a relatively large retail company (in Northern Ireland if that makes any difference) and have done since I was in school. So 6 years on now and I've worked my way up to assistant manager, been so for approximately 2 years now. I work my @ss off and have always went out of my way to prove myself. I've always been spoken very highly of by my manager and I have always had a decent relationship with area managers, everyone knows my intentions are to keep progressing myself and I've been told numerous times I'm ready for a managers position, but serious lack of opportunities within the company has meant I've had no chance.

Recently, my manager left for another job, leaving the position in my store vacant. Obviously I was in there like a flash with my cv as soon as it was advertised. Cutting to the outcome, I did not get the job. Obviously I was disappointed as I really badly wanted it and I know if I could just be given a proper chance I could prove myself 10 times over what I have already done. I'm not bitter about it, but looking back on the whole process after what people have been telling me I am beginning to think I was treated unfairly in it, but I'm not sure. Which is why I'm looking some unbiased opinions on a few things that don't seem right to me.

First of all there's the actual interview itself. The interviews were done by the area manager and another manager who I would talk to a bit, and thus I know a bit about all the interviews. All the other interviews were external applicants, all lasted 25-30 mins, and all were asked the exact same set of questions. My interview however lasted somewhere between 60-75mins, and consisted of entirely different questions to the rest. Now obviously I know that it would've been pointless asking me some of the questions that were asked to the others as I'm internal and they know all about me. However I'm doing a management course and having only recently covered the recruitment process, we were told that interviews are unfair and unlawful if candidates get asked different questions to each other. Is this however not true if one of the candidates is internal like myself? Or should that not make any difference?
I was also asked in quite a bit of depth about something to do with me and something I was doing that I did not tell my area manager about, he heard it through someone else and I was not aware he knew about it. It had nothing to do with the job and in all honesty I'm not too happy about him knowing about it as it is a bit personal and I didn't want too many people knowing about it (it's nothing bad by the way) Was this bad practice for him to bring this up in an interview when he had only heard about through the grapevine?

Then theres the period after the interview. The interviews were done a week or so before my manager was due to leave, so ofcourse by the time she left no decision had been made. I was basically just left there on my own to hold the store and was told "right, prove yourself, I'll make my decision in 8 weeks times" and that was that. I had no extra pay during this period even though I had taken on the managers role, which I still believe was wrong. Cue 8 weeks later, still no decision on my fate, but it was arranged for another manager to come and take over on a "two week trial" as she was interested in the position. Once again I was told the decision will be made in 2 weeks times. Two weeks later, nothing. Another 4 weeks later, the other manager is still there and it was basically as if the interviews never even happened, I was being fobbed off with excuse after excuse. So I basically got fed up with it all and being dragged along for so long and requested a meeting with the area manager and asked him outright what was happening, and as he was cornered he had no option but to tell me he couldn't give the the position and it was going to the other manager.
Now, the other manager got the position with no interview or anything. I know that yes she was already a manager and I wasn't, but surely if the position was fully advertised and everybody else had to do an interview for it, then shouldn't she have had to do one? I should also point out that at this stage rejection letters had yet to be sent to the rest of the applicants (that happened a further 3/4 weeks down the line yet...)

I aplogise for the long post, so I'll summarise my main issues and questions!
Was is unfair my interview was completely different to the rest, both in questions asked and duration?
Was is unfair that I was left to hold the store for 8/9 weeks with no extra pay despite taking on the managers role?
Was in unfair that the other manager got the position without doing an interview despite everybody else doing one?
And finally, would I have grounds to take my company up on this, and if so what grounds exactly would that be? Or is it all just really really bad form on their part and that's life?!

Any views and opinions appreciated guys!

tenchi-fan

The external candidates were being recruited whereas your interview was for a promotion. So naturally both interviews were going to be different.

The manager who took the position was already a manager, and she simply took a transfer. No further interview necessary.

Not getting paid for the 6-8 weeks you were acting manager... it happens the whole time. Granted it would be nice to get paid a little more, but these days people are taking promotions to management grade for career progression so a pay increase isn't always guaranteed. It's even possible the external interviewees were being offered a lower salary that you're on.

As for..

abitdisappointed wrote: »

I was also asked in quite a bit of depth about something to do with me and something I was doing that I did not tell my area manager about, he heard it through someone else and I was not aware he knew about it. It had nothing to do with the job and in all honesty I'm not too happy about him knowing about it as it is a bit personal and I didn't want too many people knowing about it (it's nothing bad by the way)

No idea. All this cryptic paragraph tells me is you were up to something and got caught out, and whatever it was the area manager considered it to be negative with regards to your prospects as manager.

Jo King

There is nothing you can do. An employer is free to appoint whoever they like to any position. You probably blew it by forcing the issue. The issue about asking different questions relates to discrimination on one of the specified grounds. This might consist of asking women how they would have their children cared for if they had to work late and not asking men. That would be unlawful as discrimination on grounds of gender.

Pineapple stu

You are entitled to the higher rate of pay when you was acting up. If they thought you was good enough to act up for 8 weeks then you should be good enough to do the job full time but they have every right to give the job to another manager because if you got the job when another manager wanted the transfer then it would have opened a big can of worms with the unions.

tenchi-fan

Pineapple stu wrote: »

You are entitled to the higher rate of pay when you was acting up.

Are you sure about this - for private sector companies and non-unionised employees? I know acting up policies exist in the public service but that's only because a rate has been agreed.

Pineapple stu

You are doing the work the other manager was doing at a higher rate so there is no reason for you not to get the rate as well. Just tread carefully if there isnt an union there as if you take a case against them they could overlook you for future promotions. Im only going by my own work so i cant be 100% sure in your employment but check it out online somewhere.

LegacyUser

Cheers for the replies guys, much appreciated. I knew there wasn't going to be anything I could do, that's why I came here just to clarify that really, listening to those nearest and dearest to me banging on for so long about how they thought it was unfair I was slowly begining to be convinced! I know they've got the best intentions but they just don't understand what my company is like, they really do take the p1ss sometimes but I've just learned to live with it!

tenchi-fan wrote: »

As for..

No idea. All this cryptic paragraph tells me is you were up to something and got caught out, and whatever it was the area manager considered it to be negative with regards to your prospects as manager.

No not at all! It was actually something he liked and was genuinely interested in as to why I was doing it and what not, I guess I just didn't like how it was brought up and I was completely taken back that he knew about it when for my own good I was trying to keep it to only those who had to know about it. I know it does sound a bit dodgey put all cryptic like that, it's absolutely not I just really don't want to go into any specifics about it!

Mrs OBumble

tenchi-fan wrote: »

The external candidates were being recruited whereas your interview was for a promotion. So naturally both interviews were going to be different.

The manager who took the position was already a manager, and she simply took a transfer. No further interview necessary.

Not getting paid for the 6-8 weeks you were acting manager...happens all the time ...

I pretty much agree.

Except I'd also say "Yes, it's all unfair. Probably not illegal, but unfair. Sometimes life's like that". (However please remember that we cannot give legal advice here, and besides you are covered by British employment law not Irish, so it may be a bit different again.)

You should now be asking the area manager:
1) what you can do to ensure that you do get the manager's job next time it comes up, and
2) how they are going to compensate you for acting up for no reward.

But it seems to me that you may have gone as far as you can in this company. Something is holding you back, and if you cannot find out what it is and fix it, you'll need to look for a new company (like all those other external candidates were doing).

TBH, I'm finding it a bit weird that the area manager talked to you about the other interviews in such depth. It may not be illegal, but I'm not sure I'd want to be reporting to a manager who did that ('cos you'd never know what he was saying to your staff about YOU).

tenchi-fan

abitdisappointed wrote: »

No not at all! It was actually something he liked and was genuinely interested in as to why I was doing it and what not, I guess I just didn't like how it was brought up and I was completely taken back that he knew about it when for my own good I was trying to keep it to only those who had to know about it.

If anything that should have worked in your favour!

Right, you didn't bring it up at the interview but you and this guy work in the same company, you weren't as discrete as you thought you were, I think it's pretty harmless that he brought it up.

He could easily have read about one of your interests in a local paper, or he could have said "oh I used to go to school with your uncle, what's he up to, etc".

But yea, internal promotions can be like that. Sometimes you just need to leave and get a new job to advance your career.
In fact, you could say to the new employer that you acted as manager for 8 weeks. If they ask why didn't you get the job, it could easily be explained that an manager had already been earmarked for the position and you were only acting until the replacement was available.

Stheno

Pineapple stu wrote: »

You are entitled to the higher rate of pay when you was acting up. If they thought you was good enough to act up for 8 weeks then you should be good enough to do the job full time but they have every right to give the job to another manager because if you got the job when another manager wanted the transfer then it would have opened a big can of worms with the unions.

Not necessarily, I've taken on my managers role in several jobs while they were ill/waiting for a replacement and got no extra pay.

I agree with what JoKing has posted.

LegacyUser

JustMary wrote: »

I pretty much agree.

Except I'd also say "Yes, it's all unfair. Probably not illegal, but unfair. Sometimes life's like that". (However please remember that we cannot give legal advice here, and besides you are covered by British employment law not Irish, so it may be a bit different again.)

You should now be asking the area manager:
1) what you can do to ensure that you do get the manager's job next time it comes up, and
2) how they are going to compensate you for acting up for no reward.

But it seems to me that you may have gone as far as you can in this company. Something is holding you back, and if you cannot find out what it is and fix it, you'll need to look for a new company (like all those other external candidates were doing).

TBH, I'm finding it a bit weird that the area manager talked to you about the other interviews in such depth. It may not be illegal, but I'm not sure I'd want to be reporting to a manager who did that ('cos you'd never know what he was saying to your staff about YOU).

It wasn't the area manager that told me about the other interviews, it was the other manager that was doing them, I would be a bit friendly with her chatting on the phone and that you know so I got a brief rundown of the other interviews. (I know she probably shouldn't have been telling me anything about them but you know how chit chat goes in shops!)

As for the the extra money for holding the branch, I'm just really not sure about that one. Thinking about it I know other people within the company who have received extra pay for holding a branch, for shorter periods of time as well, but then I also know of others who haven't. I myself have got the extra pay before for it but that time the circumstances were entirely different. Personally I believe you should get paid the correct amount for the role you doing, regardless of it being on a temporary basis, but I imagine it's just one of those things where there's no hard and fast rule for it and I should just be "grateful for the opportunity"...

I think you might be right that this is as far as getting in this company. It's not that I'm not capable of it, but this was the only opportunity that has ever came up for me and likely will be the last for a very long time due to the set up at the moment. I know the reasons why I didn't get it and tbh there's really not much I can do about it. The area manager is very stuck on his ways for progressing people and me moving directly up into manager of my store without first managing a smaller one goes completely against them, sucks as I know the place and how to run it like the back of my hand and I've always had my heart set on getting it someday, but I simply can't do anything to change that.

tenchi-fan wrote:

If anything that should have worked in your favour!

Right, you didn't bring it up at the interview but you and this guy work in the same company, you weren't as discrete as you thought you were, I think it's pretty harmless that he brought it up.

He could easily have read about one of your interests in a local paper, or he could have said "oh I used to go to school with your uncle, what's he up to, etc".

But yea, internal promotions can be like that. Sometimes you just need to leave and get a new job to advance your career.
In fact, you could say to the new employer that you acted as manager for 8 weeks. If they ask why didn't you get the job, it could easily be explained that an manager had already been earmarked for the position and you were only acting until the replacement was available.

I really shouldn't be so hung up on it being brought up, I know, guess I was also a bit miffed that the person I told about it in complete confidence told him and it just "slipped out" in conversation one day...but that's a whole different gripe for a different day!

I appreciate legal advice isn't allowed, I think I'm just looking some views from a different perspective as I know that I'm getting fed up with the company and it's ways in general, so I probably am just feeling a bit more hard done by about it all than usual. In reality I think that even if something could be deemed illegal I don't think I would take them up on it. I've been there all my working life and I've put in a hell of a lot just to get where I am, and I'm constantly going "above and beyond" not just to prove myself but that's just what I'm like. I've been through a lot in my company and even though they really do take the hand and looking at it from the outside they actually are a terrible company to work for with the way they treat all the staff, I still like it and I like the people I work with. Taking this up in any way would completely screw me in terms of my future there. But then I can't see much more of a progressive future for me there anyways...time to get the thinking cap on I guess and figure out how exactly I'm going to move on and up from this!

Eoin

Pineapple stu wrote: »

You are entitled to the higher rate of pay when you was acting up. If they thought you was good enough to act up for 8 weeks then you should be good enough to do the job full time but they have every right to give the job to another manager because if you got the job when another manager wanted the transfer then it would have opened a big can of worms with the unions.

You should really be producing links when you use phrases like "entitled to" - I also don't believe this is the case. Sure you can even get a permanent promotion that doesn't involve any pay rise.

Pineapple stu wrote:

If they thought you was good enough to act up for 8 weeks then you should be good enough to do the job full time

This depends massively on what the job is, and what the team you're managing do. Interim managers might just need to keep the status quo for a couple of months and not have to make any strategic decisions etc.

Pineapple stu

I dont have to provide any links as i know what im talking about. If the person doesnt get the higher rate for acting up a grade then there is nothing stopping the company from leaving that person to act up long term and pay them less than what the postition normally pays.

Eoin

If the person doesnt get the higher rate for acting up a grade then there is nothing stopping the company from leaving that person to act up long term and pay them less than what the postition normally pays.

But that is actually the case. There is nothing to say that a company can't promote you without giving you a pay rise.

Pineapple stu

If they promote you and they dont raise your pay accordingly then they are taking liberties with you. If you take on added responsibilities then you should be paid for it.

Eoin

Perhaps, but saying you should get a pay rise in the interests of fairness is not the same as saying you're "entitled" to any sort of pay rise. Using words like "entitled" implies that it's covered by employment law.

Pineapple stu

It is.

tenchi-fan

Pineapple stu wrote: »

If they promote you and they dont raise your pay accordingly then they are taking liberties with you. If you take on added responsibilities then you should be paid for it.

Are you quoting that from employment law statutes?

If the management duties are so different to the employee's contract, yes the employee can refuse to perform them.

Eoin

Pineapple stu wrote: »

It is.

No it isn't. You are not entitled by law to any pay rise upon promotion; be it temporary or permanent. Your last post was talking about a company taking liberties, not rooted in law at all.

From this page; emphasis is mine.

Q. I have been working for my present company for the past two years. Recently, my supervisor left the job, and I was told I would be taking on his duties. This means I have more responsibility. However, when I approached my boss for an increase in salary, I was told no because of the current economic environment. Do I have a right to be paid more? Also, as my conditions of employment are changing, am I entitled to a new contract?

A. It is not unusual for employees to occupy several roles during their employment with a company.

There is no entitlement to a new contract of employment on a promotion — in effect, where employees are promoted, their existing contract remains in place, with an implied change in the job title. However, where a promotion leads to significant changes in reporting structures or remuneration packages, then it is probably best for both the employer and the employee if a new contract is drafted to reflect these changes and avoid disputes at a later stage.

In general, there is no automatic right to a pay increase and this is a matter to be negotiated between yourself and your employer.

You would seem to be in a strong negotiating position in circumstances where the company needs to fill this role and the alternative to putting you in that role is recruiting and negotiating with external candidates.

If you felt that there were discriminatory reasons behind the refusal to increase your pay, such as gender or race, then you could consider making a complaint to the Equality Tribunal.

Paul Gough is a solicitor with Eugene F Collins.

Pineapple stu

Sorry if i mistook this page as a discussion forum and i didnt realise i was in the Labour court.

Eoin

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Sorry if i mistook this page as a discussion forum and i didnt realise i was in the Labour court.

Don't be so immature - you were saying that the OP had a legal entitlement to a pay rise, which is not the case. I'm sure you don't want the OP going into a meeting with their boss armed with incorrect information.

Pineapple stu wrote:

I dont have to provide any links as i know what im talking about.

Eoin wrote:

Using words like "entitled" implies that it's covered by employment law.

Pineapple stu wrote:

It is

That's not "discussion", that's just giving wrong information, which has been corrected.

Mrs OBumble

Pineapple stu wrote: »

If they promote you and they dont raise your pay accordingly then they are taking liberties with you. If you take on added responsibilities then you should be paid for it.

And on a non-legal note: welcome to the recession! Companies are "taking liberties" all over the country, and getting away with it because supply is greater than demand.

Pineapple stu

JustMary wrote: »

And on a non-legal note: welcome to the recession! Companies are "taking liberties" all over the country, and getting away with it because supply is greater than demand.

And they always will if people keep doing nothing about it.

Pineapple stu

Eoin wrote: »

Don't be so immature - you were saying that the OP had a legal entitlement to a pay rise, which is not the case. I'm sure you don't want the OP going into a meeting with their boss armed with incorrect information.







That's not "discussion", that's just giving wrong information, which has been corrected.

The OP would be dam foolish to go into any meeting armed only with information posted on here. How has the info been corrected? Please dont quote the pasted info from a solicitor as its not really saying much is it.
You can be assured that if you mention to the rights commisioner or the Labour court that you are acting up to a higher paid grade for a long time and not getting the rate for that grade then they will look favourable on you. There isnt a point messing about with handing out new contracts to someone that is acting up for a length of time as they will be going down to their normal grade once there is no need for that person to be acting up. If a person is acting up to a higher grade for around 4/8 years or so then they retain that rate of pay when they drop back down to their normal grade. Its your rates of pay that changes not your contract.

P.s
Lighten up a bit there its only a discussion board and not the citizen information page, nothing posted on here can be used as proof of rights.

Eoin

How has the info been corrected? Please dont quote the pasted info from a solicitor as its not really saying much is it.

Seriously? I don't know how I can provide a link to legislation that doesn't exist. You said it is covered by employment law, and I provided a link that says that there is no right. If you're so sure you're right, then you post the link.

Lighten up a bit there its only a discussion board and not the citizen information page, nothing posted on here can be used as proof of rights.

And I'm discussing it, just like you are. This isn't a general chat forum; and I think it's always helpful to the OP to provide links to back up what you're saying.

tenchi-fan

Pineapple stu wrote: »

P.s
Lighten up a bit there its only a discussion board and not the citizen information page, nothing posted on here can be used as proof of rights.

Discussion is one thing, but arguing when you're clearly wrong is just annoying.

Pineapple stu

Eoin wrote: »

Seriously? I don't know how I can provide a link to legislation that doesn't exist. You said it is covered by employment law, and I provided a link that says that there is no right. If you're so sure you're right, then you post the link.



And I'm discussing it, just like you are. This isn't a general chat forum; and I think it's always helpful to the OP to provide links to back up what you're saying.

. You havent provided any link to say there is no right. The rules of this forum prevents me or you from posting a link to say that im right or wrong. This forum is for people to ask questions and for others to post their opinions and people can take from it what they want. This is not a forum for legal advice as said in the sticky above. If its legal advice people are after then they are in the wrong place.

Pineapple stu

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Discussion is one thing, but arguing when you're clearly wrong is just annoying.

In your opinion Look it up and then come back to me. But for this thread its just my opinion like . Have i said that you are wrong? No i havent as its your opinion but you have dismissed me as being wrong with nothing viable to back it up.
Here is a question, are you or eoin employers ?

Eoin

I know fully well what the rules of the forum are. This forum isn't for legal advice on specific cases, but people are allowed ask what their entitlements are.

If the OP asked something like "do you think I should sue?" then that would not be allowed. If the OP said "Am I automatically entitled to a pay rise if I'm acting manager", then that is allowed (and the answer is No). It can sometimes be a fine line, and if you think it's crossing the line, then report any posts. In this case I can assure you that it is not breaking the rules of the forum for you to post a link that proves that you are entitled to pay rise for temporary promotion.

Pineapple Stu wrote:

Show me where i say "its covered by employment law". You havent provided any link to say there is no right.

I can't provide a link to legislation that doesn't exist.

Pineapple Stu wrote:

Show me where i say "its covered by employment law".

See quotes below:

Eoin wrote: »

Using words like "entitled" implies that it's covered by employment law.

Pineapple stu wrote: »

It is.

Pineapple stu

You have already posted most of that.

From what info have you taken to keep saying No and im wrong?

Have a read and make of it what you wish. The following is not my words.

Equal Pay – an employee is entitled to equal pay – equal remuneration – where they perform the same, similar or work of equal value compared to another employee, earning higher pay employed by the same or associated employer.
Equal Pay Clause – the Employment Equality Act, 1998, provides that an entitlement to equal pay is implicit in every employee’s contract of employment.

To go back to the opening post.
The recruitment process was fair and unfair ,
It was unfair to interview candidates from outside the company when they had every intention of filling the vacancy from inside therefore wasting the candidates time and theirs and the cost of the interviews for the day.
The OP had no chance of the vacancy as the company's intent was to give it to another manager anyway if one applied.
It was fair for the vacancy to be filled by an employee of the same grade.

tenchi-fan

Pineapple stu. Black is white. Discuss.

Pineapple stu wrote: »

Equal Pay – an employee is entitled to equal pay – equal remuneration – where they perform the same, similar or work of equal value compared to another employee, earning higher pay employed by the same or associated employer.
Equal Pay Clause – the Employment Equality Act, 1998, provides that an entitlement to equal pay is implicit in every employee’s contract of employment.

People can also get higher pay simply by being more experienced or by being employed for longer. The op has 8 weeks management experience... how much experience did the previous manager have?

When my manager goes on annual leave, I don't suddenly get a €30k payrise just because I deal with queries in her place as best I can.

The op was not employed as a manager .. she was acting manager. No long-term goals. No strategic decisions. Ultimately, the buck didn't stop with her. She just had to keep things ticking over. It's possible she required more supervision from the area manager.

Pineapple stu wrote: »

The recruitment process was fair and unfair

Is this more legal jargon?

Pineapple stu wrote: »

It was unfair to interview candidates from outside the company when they had every intention of filling the vacancy from inside therefore wasting the candidates time and theirs and the cost of the interviews for the day.

Even in a recession companies are on the look-out for fresh blood. Turns out they didn't find a suitable candidate. The place I'm in is currently looking for my replacement (it's a temp job). After a few weeks of accepting cv's they decided to offer me the job. I'm not taking it.. but hey, wasn't that unfair they wasted people's time by asking for cv's only to offer the role internally?

Pineapple stu wrote: »

The OP had no chance of the vacancy as the company's intent was to give it to another manager anyway if one applied.

Not necessarily. They could have got candidates for the job who worked for one of their suppliers, or a competitor..
Or internally, perhaps the op just didn't meet their requirements (no offence op, if you're still reading this!)

Pineapple stu wrote: »

It was fair for the vacancy to be filled by an employee of the same grade.

:rolleyes: oookay. If you say so.