Unfair competition - application for a semi state job

gordongekko

runawaybishop wrote: »

Read the thread, they searched his name before the interview occured, which was also off site.

So they heard there were external candidates and had a look on linkedin and stumbled across the ops name. Nothing to see here. Move on

beer enigma

gordongekko wrote: »

That none of your business so just move on with your life

Ok so how about I'm €680 down on flight costs and it's a government department involved.

Search for ops on LinkedIn... Good luck with the results list lol.

I'm 17 years on boards so well used to people offering no advice and using it for pot shots.

I'll not rise to you.

runawaybishop

gordongekko wrote: »

So they heard there were external candidates and had a look on linkedin and stumbled across the ops name. Nothing to see here. Move on

Forget about reading the thread then, maybe start by reading my post.

gordongekko

beer enigma wrote: »

Ok so how about I'm €680 down on flight costs and it's a government department involved.

Search for ops on LinkedIn... Good luck with the results list lol.

I'm 17 years on boards so well used to people offering no advice and using it for pot shots.

I'll not rise to you.

If you are in senior role as you suggest then the number wouldn't be that large.

manonboard

gordongekko wrote: »

So they heard there were external candidates and had a look on linkedin and stumbled across the ops name. Nothing to see here. Move on

The op has already been told by the agency that the internal candidate said they grabbed the name off a sheet that never had the OP's name on it. There's no 'just searching' going on. It was clearly a breach of data privacy.

evolving_doors

beer enigma wrote: »

Ok just had a call from the agency and gave them permission for the organisation to contact me directly.

They told me that following their internal investigation, the individual had claimed that she'd seen my name in their internal Health & Safety sign in book that the board use for visitors and in a moment of madness she had used the information to look me up.

I was just about to point out this was not possible when they added that that they appreciate this could not be the truth as the interview had taken place away from the workplace and that the lookup on LinkedIn was prior to the 2nd interview date.

They are writing to me directly following further investigation, so I'll hold my breath a bit longer.

Did you record the conversation, or get it in email?
Otherwise you're wasting your time with 'he said she said' trying to prove they broke data protection by allowing your name to become available. They could easily claim now that during the phone conversation they only suggested it as a possibility, and not a verifiable documented confirmation by the other candidate that they saw your name.

Connecting your linkedin viewing to the job is just proving a coincidence. It's like the other candidate passed you in the street and now you are claiming they followed you because you both applied for the same job. Linkedin is a public space, I can randomly click at any connection to see who I like.

But I feel your pain, I've seen it umpteen times in education. Many times they're just making up the numbers or holding mock interviews as a CID has to advertise etc.
You never know, the person who did get the job might take ill or have to move. but that's a longshot.

Is there any way of getting your scoring from the interview (that's also allowed under data protection too). Or did you get a position on a panel?

evolving_doors

manonboard wrote: »

The op has already been told by the agency that the internal candidate said they grabbed the name off a sheet that never had the OP's name on it. There's no 'just searching' going on. It was clearly a breach of data privacy.

That's just hearsay.

beer enigma

gordongekko wrote: »

If you are in senior role as you suggest then the number wouldn't be that large.

Lol

beer enigma

evolving_doors wrote: »

Did you record the conversation, or get it in email?
Otherwise you're wasting your time with 'he said she said' trying to prove they broke data protection by allowing your name to become available. They could easily claim now that during the phone conversation they only suggested it as a possibility, and not a verifiable documented confirmation by the other candidate that they saw your name.

Connecting your linkedin viewing to the job is just proving a coincidence. It's like the other candidate passed you in the street and now you are claiming they followed you because you both applied for the same job. Linkedin is a public space, I can randomly click at any connection to see who I like.

But I feel your pain, I've seen it umpteen times in education. Many times they're just making up the numbers or holding mock interviews as a CID has to advertise etc.
You never know, the person who did get the job might take ill or have to move. but that's a longshot.

Is there any way of getting your scoring from the interview (that's also allowed under data protection too). Or did you get a position on a panel?

Sorry, but this thread has been honest explicit and accurate in reporting the whole way through all detail, no hearsay. Sometimes a simple ask of who do I go to is not worth asking on here, 17 years on Boards and its just a minefield in recdnt years which is really sad.

The thread clearly states how the LinkedIn view was not coincidence - unlike passing in the street.

The concerned board has committed to write to me directly as mentioned with the findings, no hearsay, no supposition. I asked for advice here as I thought appropriate where to go next and the board ( note I've deliberately not named the state body) are writing and likely include options.

I'll take it from here

As you are a Mod can we please close this thread.

17 years, 12 as a Mod and as part of the original Boards crew it's time I signed off from Boards.

Please close and lock

beer enigma

evolving_doors wrote: »

That's just hearsay.

It's not because the agency read the text of the letter that is on the way from state board

evolving_doors

beer enigma wrote: »

Sorry, but this thread has been honest explicit and accurate in reporting the whole way through,

I totally believe you... proving it to others is the tricky part, that's what I'm saying.

beer enigma wrote: »

sometimes a simple ask of who do I go to is not worth asking on here, 17 years on Boards and its just a minefield in recdnt years which is really sad.

Dunno what you mean by that. But I think someone already suggested the data protection commissioner, and asking for your personal data under GDPR. I'm just trying to tease things out if they go further.

beer enigma wrote: »

The concerned board has committed to write to me directly as mentioned with the findings, no hearsay, no supposition.

So are they going to put in writing exactly what they told you over the phone, even though it's illogical and a blatant lie (as you pointed out about the interview location)?
I doubt they will, considering they might know you rumbled them.
And if they don't then it's up to you proving that they admitted such over the phone to you... hence my hearsay comment.

beer enigma wrote: »

I asked for advice here as I thought appropriate where to go next and the board ( note I've deliberately not named the state body) are writing and likely include options.

I'll take it from here

.

Honestly...Best of luck with that, I'd be interested to know what options they offer you

beer enigma wrote: »

As you are a Mod can we please close this thread.

I'm just a lowly mod from a different forum. But I'm interested because it happens in education.

beer enigma wrote: »

17 years, 12 as a Mod and as part of the original Boards crew it's time I signed off from Boards.

Please close and lock

I dunno. I don't think anything has taken a turn for the worst here. You seem to be doing what you're entitled to do to get some clarity and put it up to them. If you've nothing to loose then stick it to them.

Leo Demidov

beer enigma wrote:

17 years, 12 as a Mod and as part of the original Boards crew it's time I signed off from Boards.

beer enigma wrote:

Please close and lock

Good luck with your enquiries, I would have no qualms in throwing the successful candidate under the bus, she willingly engaged in conversation with somebody about you and your candidacy. She was obviously engaged in some form of canvassing and her appointment warrants scrutiny.

Sorry you've had to deal with so many clowns on here. Just a suggestion though, if there are details that might compromise your current position I would seek to alter or remove them.

beer enigma

wexfjord wrote: »

Good luck with your enquiries, I would have no qualms in throwing the successful candidate under the bus, she willingly engaged in conversation with somebody about you and your candidacy. She was obviously engaged in some form of canvassing and her appointment warrants scrutiny.

Sorry you've had to deal with so many clowns on here. Just a suggestion though, if there are details that might compromise your current position I would seek to alter or remove them.

Nothing compromises me, I've named no agency or body or person deliberately and in no way want vengeance. The successful candidate is probably the best person for the job, They know it well by the sounds of it, my gripe is the leak of information and the waste of my time money and hopes.

evolving_doors

beer enigma wrote: »

It's not because the agency read the text of the letter that is on the way from state board

Ok, you didn't mention they were quoting verbatim from a letter (or else I missed it).
If this is the case then their lie has painted them into a corner a bit. But is there any possibility that the candidate can backtrack and qualify the statement (do a Donald Trump!), it's not a sworn deposition though.

Anyhow.. under CPSA http://www.cpsa.ie/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Setting-Recruitment-Standards/Code-of-Practice-for-Appointment-to-Positions-in-the-Civil-Service-and-Public-Service-.pdf Pg. 29

5.2 Candidates’ obligations
Candidates in the recruitment process must not
• Knowingly or recklessly provide false information
• Canvass any person, with or without inducements
• Interfere with or compromise the process in any way
A third party must not impersonate a candidate at any stage of the process


You could maintain that the process was compromised as the other candidate had been given (or gotten unfairly) your name. Although .. how would that prevent the interview panel from choosing you. What unfair advantage would the other candidate by knowing who the other candidate was (apart from showing that they were untrustworthy).

evolving_doors

wexfjord wrote: »

Good luck with your enquiries, I would have no qualms in throwing the successful candidate under the bus, she willingly engaged in conversation with somebody about you and your candidacy. She was obviously engaged in some form of canvassing and her appointment warrants scrutiny.

Sorry you've had to deal with so many clowns on here. Just a suggestion though, if there are details that might compromise your current position I would seek to alter or remove them.

None of the above is provable though (although probably true!). The only thing the OP has is their admission that they found the Op's name on a list which as we know was BS.
The admission of being dishonest though could be worth something if it's in writing. This might disqualify the successful candidate if it goes against CPSA.

Might be worthy of a short chat with an employment solicitor OP.

beer enigma

evolving_doors wrote: »

Ok, you didn't mention they were quoting verbatim from a letter (or else I missed it).
If this is the case then their lie has painted them into a corner a bit. But is there any possibility that the candidate can backtrack and qualify the statement (do a Donald Trump!), it's not a sworn deposition though.

Anyhow.. under CPSA http://www.cpsa.ie/en/About-Us/What-we-do/Setting-Recruitment-Standards/Code-of-Practice-for-Appointment-to-Positions-in-the-Civil-Service-and-Public-Service-.pdf Pg. 29

5.2 Candidates’ obligations
Candidates in the recruitment process must not
• Knowingly or recklessly provide false information
• Canvass any person, with or without inducements
• Interfere with or compromise the process in any way
A third party must not impersonate a candidate at any stage of the process


You could maintain that the process was compromised as the other candidate had been given (or gotten unfairly) your name. Although .. how would that prevent the interview panel from choosing you. What unfair advantage would the other candidate by knowing who the other candidate was (apart from showing that they were untrustworthy).

I claimed unlevel field as I don't know 100% if their second interview was before or after mine and also they had access to information nobody else had

evolving_doors

beer enigma wrote: »

I claimed unlevel field as I don't know 100% if their second interview was before or after mine and also they had access to information nobody else had

How would them knowing who you are put you at an unfair advantage? Perhaps you could argue that the successful candidate could tailor their responses to try and better your experience or anticipate what you might offer in an interview (e.g. by studying up on linkedin). Whereas, if you had equally known who the other candidates were, then you would also be able to plan accordingly, and compete against the other candidate as opposed to just trying to fit yourself into the role by going solely with your own attributes.

Would you consider having a chat with a solicitor OP. It looks like you might just get one shot at it, so it might be more prudent to not reveal any more to the opposition with complaints flying back and forth until you have all your ducks in a row.

If it were me I'd hold off on any more interactions until I had legal advice. The agency knows you have them rumbled, but there is a slight chance that they haven't gone back to them and relayed their false admission. So if you let them know that you can show that they are lying then they might change or 'qualify' their story to suit themselves.

CZ 453

I'm going to say this. Fair play to you for having all your evidence ready before you pursued this. I can't understand how you think it's ok to not pursue a complaint against the individual. This person is part of the problem. They are taking a senior role having engaged in activity that was not allowed. They will perpetuate this cycle if it's let go. As you say how fair was it on you to spend that money pursuing a job you had no chance getting. You and the system learn nothing by walking away. It'll just happen again in another while. I know you don't want a witch hunt but the person in the role now lied in getting there.

beer enigma

evolving_doors wrote: »

How would them knowing who you are put you at an unfair advantage? Perhaps you could argue that the successful candidate could tailor their responses to try and better your experience or anticipate what you might offer in an interview (e.g. by studying up on linkedin). Whereas, if you had equally known who the other candidates were, then you would also be able to plan accordingly, and compete against the other candidate as opposed to just trying to fit yourself into the role by going solely with your own attributes.

Would you consider having a chat with a solicitor OP. It looks like you might just get one shot at it, so it might be more prudent to not reveal any more to the opposition with complaints flying back and forth until you have all your ducks in a row.

If it were me I'd hold off on any more interactions until I had legal advice. The agency knows you have them rumbled, but there is a slight chance that they haven't gone back to them and relayed their false admission. So if you let them know that you can show that they are lying then they might change or 'qualify' their story to suit themselves.

Two answers really

Boards never advocates legal discussion under their charter

And secondly I'm it looking to get the job, just close potentially dangerous loophole within the organisation.

beer enigma

CZ 453 wrote: »

I'm going to say this. Fair play to you for having all your evidence ready before you pursued this. I can't understand how you think it's ok to not pursue a complaint against the individual. This person is part of the problem. They are taking a senior role having engaged in activity that was not allowed. They will perpetuate this cycle if it's let go. As you say how fair was it on you to spend that money pursuing a job you had no chance getting. You and the system learn nothing by walking away. It'll just happen again in another while. I know you don't want a witch hunt but the person in the role now lied in getting there.

Everyone's situation is different and a promotion could be crucial to their family. This depends on if they sought out the information deliberately or whether they were handed it and used it misguidedly. The fact they didn't cover their tracks suggests the latter.

CZ 453

beer enigma wrote: »

Everyone's situation is different and a promotion could be crucial to their family. This depends on if they sought out the information deliberately or whether they were handed it and used it misguidedly. The fact they didn't cover their tracks suggests the latter.

At what expense? The promotion not being crucial to your family and the other candidates. The fact they lied about the log in suggests the rabbit hole goes deeper. Could anyone say that only your info was passed on or obtained if the individual is lying about how they acquired it. Surely they'd just say I got it from X if this wasn't an issue.

STB.

Hi OP.

I've a passing interest in data protection.

Having read the thread I think you should know that you have provided enough information in this thread to identify yourself, the successful candidate and the government agency, should someone want to put the pieces together.

A few observations. All public jobs at this level would be subject to open competition regardless of whether there is an internal candidate so I do not know about how your agency came by this info. That it was released to you is a data breach in itself.

Exactly why recruitment agencies were involved and the obvious close contact they had with the employer is also fairly shocking. Did all candidates for this publicly advertised job come through your recruitment agency ? I would not think so. I presume the agency was searching jobs for you.

From what you have posted both you and the internal candidate may have info that others did not have.
You also mention there were 4 candidates ? How do you know this ?

Finally it does not take a genius to figure out where the info leaked from to the internal candidate, who was already in an interim position there. Who did you send the application to?

You could try a data protection request to the entity were the job was for all info including internal emails involving your name. It's more likely that it was passed on verbally though!

Finally what are you trying to achieve ? Do you think that the awareness of the other candidates helped you or hindered you ? What about the other candidates that may not have had this info?

You will find it difficult to make this prove any significant effect on the outcome of the recruitment process other than to point that it was fairly flimsy all round in terms of dp.

Sounds like they found an ambitious ops manager

gordongekko

beer enigma wrote: »

Lol

If that's the type of answers you give as a person in a senior role did you ever think of getting some interview training?

evolving_doors

beer enigma wrote: »

Two answers really

Boards never advocates legal discussion under their charter

And secondly I'm it looking to get the job, just close potentially dangerous loophole within the organisation.

Legal discussion is perfectly fine.
Legal advice is not.

Secondly part I agree . Although I'm a bit puzzled as you are adamant that you don't want the job and want to leave the person in situ. You also said before that they are the best person for the job. How can you be so certain?
If it were all fair and you had equally known who your competition was, would you have bothered going for the job?

Vetch

STB. wrote: »

Having read the thread I think you should know that you have provided enough information in this thread to identify yourself, the successful candidate and the government agency, should someone want to put the pieces together.

I'll second this.

evolving_doors

STB. wrote: »

Hi OP.

I've a passing interest in data protection.

Having read the thread I think you should know that you have provided enough information in this thread to identify yourself, the successful candidate and the government agency, should someone want to put the pieces together.

A few observations. All public jobs at this level would be subject to open competition regardless of whether there is an internal candidate so I do not know about how your agency came by this info. That it was released to you is a data breach in itself.

Exactly why recruitment agencies were involved and the obvious close contact they had with the employer is also fairly shocking. Did all candidates for this publicly advertised job come through your recruitment agency ? I would not think so. I presume the agency was searching jobs for you.

I don't think the OP needs to worry about being identified, the employer knows everything anyway. The OP has nothing to loose as they don't want the job now.

The agency could be acting on behalf of employer or the OP. I can't see they did anything wrong. The agency came by the info cos the employer gave it to them (the letter of admission if that's what you're talking about).
Actually just from a bit of research, the agency are obliged to pass on any discrepancies to the CPSA... from a ministers reply about a somewhat similar issue (I'll try and post it later), it would appear that the CPSA are quite toothless in taking any action ...but they still have to investigate.

STB. wrote: »

From what you have posted both you and the internal candidate may have info that others did not have.
You also mention there were 4 candidates ? How do you know this ?

No harm in Anyone telling how many applicants there are. You'd see it on recruitment websites too "x people have applied for this position".

STB. wrote: »

Finally it does not take a genius to figure out where the info leaked from to the internal candidate, who was already in an interim position there. Who did you send the application to?

You could try a data protection request to the entity were the job was for all info including internal emails involving your name. It's more likely that it was passed on verbally though!

The leak could have been from the postal room, to HR, to the panel, or else the other guy could have accessed a folder of the interview panel in the job, or snuck a peek at a list before, during or after the interview. Or been told who the other candidate was by HR... or been told that "some guy is flying over from Portugal to attend " by another candidate,panel, HR .... and then did a bit of digging.

But yes he should be able to get any emails that mention his name. If they were clued in it would have all been verbal... But you never know.

STB. wrote: »

Finally what are you trying to achieve ? Do you think that the awareness of the other candidates helped you or hindered you ? What about the other candidates that may not have had this info?

I don't think the op had any awareness of the other candidates until after the process had ended.(if I'm reading you correctly).

STB. wrote: »

You will find it difficult to make this prove any significant effect on the outcome of the recruitment process other than to point that it was fairly flimsy all round in terms of dp.

Sounds like they found an ambitious ops manager

If they send the admission letter then he might find it easy to prove.

Same as yourself though, I'd be keen to know if anything came out of the gdpr request.

beer enigma

Lads, thanks for all the advice, most of it interesting and helpful.

I'm going to wait until I get the letter from the organisation before commenting further as I think any more discussion will either be going over old ground or be circumstantial.

Just to answer those few questions that are circling:

No its not the agency that most people are guessing at - this is a small unit that I didn't know even existed until I was approached and its not Dublin based.

The hiring process is strange in that its governed by state open competition but has no HR unit of its own - only 20 people employed. Interviews are run by a voluntary board made up of senior figures from different disciplines that have an interest in the business of the organisation. When they need to fill a vacancy they have a preferred recruitment agency that they use - this agency i believe also placed the internal candidate a couple of years back. My cv happened to be with the agency and they contacted me and asked if I was interested in applying, which I was. I believe they also had the other two external candidates on their books. It was made clear that there was an internal candidate who was applying and that they currently held the role of Interim Manager. I was quite rightly given no other details of them. I understand that under open competition rules basic disclosure is allowed.

Both of my interviews were held offsite in airport hotels as I had to return from Lisbon to attend and then immediately fly back, so no rooms booked in their offices, no sign in.

Less than two weeks after the interview I happened to check my LinkedIn 'who's viewed you' and saw a profile that had viewed me two weeks previously, their title was "Interim Manager [Organisation Name]" - as there are only 20 employees (available on a public website) I put 2 & 2 together and guessed this was the internal candidate. They had viewed my profile between my first and second interview. I said nothing initially as I hadn't heard the result, however when the agency phoned to say I had not got the role, I flagged the issue and was called back to say an investigation had begun. I don't know if the internal candidate had already had their second interview when they viewed my profile, hence my concern at the level playing field.

Agency contacted me again yesterday to say that during the internal investigation, the internal candidate had stated that they had seen my name in the Health & Safety sign in book in their offices and had misguidedly used it to look me up. HOWEVER, the Board noted that as my first interview had been offsite, there was no sign in to the H&S book and secondly, due to the screenshot I supplied, dates verified by LinkedIN, the profile view was before my second interview, the time frame at which she'd claimed to have taken a look at the book.

The agency requested permission to pass my personal details onto the organisation as the Chair of the board wanted to write to me by way of apology and also to let me know the status of their investigation. I understand a further meeting between the board and the parent HR function has also taken place yesterday evening, so I'm waiting for the letter to arrive before deciding what action, IF ANY I am going to take.

Yes I feel that i was played and just made up the numbers
Yes I am out of pocket by €680 for flights and that irks me
Yes I'm a great believer in correct process and this certainly wasnt
Yes the organisation deals with confidential personal info and for that reason, this also raises alarm bells
Yes, the successful candidate MAY be the best person for the job, I never disputed that, however this lack of judgement would make me query that
No they could not have found me randomly via LinkedIN as I'm listed as a Senior Ops Manager in a completely different discipline and there are thousands of SOM profiles, in any event, they have admitted they had my name and searched deliberately.
No I'm not demanding disciplinary action taken, they did this for their own reasons and have to live by the consequences.
Yes I'm sad to have lost the role as I think I could have made a difference and put a lot of time and effort in the application.
No I don't believe the agency leaked information as the internal candidate is no longer on their books, so makes no commercial sense.

Yes I'm actually very satisfied with the way it has been handled so far, pending receipt of the letter and on that basis, I think its best left until that time. I've never come across a situation like this before and came onto Boards to see if anyone knew the structure and where my next port of call MAY be & thanks to all who have helped. Sadly you always get people who add no value and just take pot shots, but like the internal candidate, they have their own reason.

So 1 after this essay..... watch this space

fishy_fishy

Just wanted to say I'm glad you're following it up. Ultimately, it's you and I funding the public and civil services through our taxes, and the rules are there to ensure the process is fair and yields the best available person for the job.

It's heartening to know that the board are taking the issue seriously. Who knows whether it had any effect, but if it was before either of the internal candidate's interviews it's impossible to determine and nobody can seriously claim a level playing field.

LionelNashe

beer enigma wrote: »

Ok just had a call from the agency and gave them permission for the organisation to contact me directly.

They told me that following their internal investigation, the individual had claimed that she'd seen my name in their internal Health & Safety sign in book that the board use for visitors and in a moment of madness she had used the information to look me up.

I was just about to point out this was not possible when they added that that they appreciate this could not be the truth as the interview had taken place away from the workplace and that the lookup on LinkedIn was prior to the 2nd interview date.

They are writing to me directly following further investigation, so I'll hold my breath a bit longer.

Do you not think you're dropping too many hints about the nature of the organisation ("sister organisation of.." etc) and the situation? Anyone involved who comes across this thread will gather enough information to help them in covering it up, if that is their intention. Unless, of course, you're mixing in a few deliberately misleading details into the thread to lead them astray, in which case, well done.

AndrewJRenko

beer enigma wrote: »

Lads, thanks for all the advice, most of it interesting and helpful.

I'm going to wait until I get the letter from the organisation before commenting further as I think any more discussion will either be going over old ground or be circumstantial.

Just to answer those few questions that are circling:

No its not the agency that most people are guessing at - this is a small unit that I didn't know even existed until I was approached and its not Dublin based.

The hiring process is strange in that its governed by state open competition but has no HR unit of its own - only 20 people employed. Interviews are run by a voluntary board made up of senior figures from different disciplines that have an interest in the business of the organisation. When they need to fill a vacancy they have a preferred recruitment agency that they use - this agency i believe also placed the internal candidate a couple of years back. My cv happened to be with the agency and they contacted me and asked if I was interested in applying, which I was. I believe they also had the other two external candidates on their books. It was made clear that there was an internal candidate who was applying and that they currently held the role of Interim Manager. I was quite rightly given no other details of them. I understand that under open competition rules basic disclosure is allowed.

The first thing you need to clarify is whether this is
a) a State body, or
b) a State-funded body.

There are two very different things in terms of governance and regulation. A state body is one set up by legislation. There will be an Act setting them up. Bodies like Citizens INformation Board, TUSLA, Health Safety Authority, National Disability Authority are state bodies. Their Boards are appointed by a Minister, and they get most, if not all, of their funding from the State.

A state funded body is very different. An example would be Console, the charity run by the disgraced Paul Kelly. They got their funding from the HSE and other Government departments, but they're not a state body. The state doesn't run the body or appoint the Board. The State may set certain conditions of funding, but the body is not run by the State. In the health sector, bodies like St John of God, Brothers of Charity, Rehab would be large amounts of state funding, but they're not state bodies.

It would be unusual, though not unknown, for a state body to use a recruitment agency like this. A volunteer board would be unusual in a state body also.

If it is not a state body, CPSA and Ombudsman would have no role. You could make a data protection/GDPR complaint to the Data Protection COmmissioner.