Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unfair competition - application for a semi state job

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    From the clues provided I would imagine that's its akin to an agency set up under the likes of the auspices of the CIB like say possibly CIS or CPIS.

    Either way it'll be subject to DP requests for access to personal information held in emails etc


  • Options
    #93
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    I think at the very least you should be refunded for the flights. Maybe when they contact you again you should flag how your time and money was waisted as the other candidate had an unfair advantage (by knowing your profile).

    Ask them if other candidates names were released also... I doubt he just had a peek at a list and only profiled you. Anywhere you could put up a notice somewhere seeking out people who had applied for this job and failed!
    Maybe hint to them that you think you know one of the other candidates. Don't forget... you mentioned that there were other internal candidates (I think!) ... it could be possible to find them, they'd even be more annoyed as they are internal and probably very close to office politics.
    This would really put the frighteners on them if they knew you were willing to go all in.
    Is there a way of checking who someone views on linkedin?


  • Options
    #94
    rock22
    Registered Users Posts: 1,623 ✭✭✭rock22


    Just a few general comments.
    I have worked mostly in the state sector and I am speaking from custom then. Retired for a few years but things might have changed.

    Candidates for management positions would be often well known before interview. It would be normal , and often expected, for candidates to visit the workplace and meet staff, including internal candidates. Not making such a visit would probably count against a candidate.


    Being known as a candidate would not indicate in any way, an unfair process. While it is clear you expected that your candidature would not be shared with other candidates that in itself does not mean you were treated unfairly.


  • Options
    #95
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    rock22 wrote: »
    Just a few general comments.
    I have worked mostly in the state sector and I am speaking from custom then. Retired for a few years but things might have changed.

    Candidates for management positions would be often well known before interview. It would be normal , and often expected, for candidates to visit the workplace and meet staff, including internal candidates. Not making such a visit would probably count against a candidate.


    Being known as a candidate would not indicate in any way, an unfair process. While it is clear you expected that your candidature would not be shared with other candidates that in itself does not mean you were treated unfairly.

    We know that the candidate found the name on a list is a lie... I suspect it was more than just a single name they came across. The list seems to be trying to this cover up. If there is a list the op would be entitled to see this document (with other people names/details redacted ). Unless it's been binned.

    If another candidate has / is given access to another candidates info then I think that's unfair. I.e. unlike your above example... did everyone know who each other was, or more importantly... we're they told.

    Also it could be argued that the successful candidate broke procedure by unlawfully accessing data on the interview process. So it should have disqualified them (going by CPSA rules posted above).


  • Options
    #96
    malkmoose
    Registered Users Posts: 98 ✭✭malkmoose


    Without all of the information we can not make a fair judgement or conclusion. From the information supplied by op, an internal candidate got his details by fair means or foul.
    Option 1: do nothing. The behaviour in the agency could continue i.e. unfairly sharing info with a candidate. Shouldn't be tolerated.
    Option 2: formal complaint. May not change the result but may prevent the behaviour in the future.
    Personally I am chair of the staff committee in an EU agency, I really hope you lodge a complaint. It's the professional duty of the agency to be fair and transparent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    I'm still a little unclear about how the internal candidate having the OPs linkedIn profile impacted the interview exactly?

    100% they shouldnt have had their details, but I'm lost as to how it made the interview unfair, unless the OP is suggesting that the internal candidate somehow lied to make themselves appear better than the OP?


  • Options
    #98
    Thud
    Registered Users Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Thud


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm still a little unclear about how the internal candidate having the OPs linkedIn profile impacted the interview exactly?

    100% they shouldnt have had their details, but I'm lost as to how it made the interview unfair, unless the OP is suggesting that the internal candidate somehow lied to make themselves appear better than the OP?

    highly likely the person who passed on his details was on the interview panel, if they are showing favor to the other candidate by sharing his name it's not a stretch to think they were biased towards the internal candidate


  • Options
    #99
    Diceicle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭Diceicle


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm still a little unclear about how the internal candidate having the OPs linkedIn profile impacted the interview exactly?

    100% they shouldnt have had their details, but I'm lost as to how it made the interview unfair, unless the OP is suggesting that the internal candidate somehow lied to make themselves appear better than the OP?

    I think it gives an air of collusion towards the whole process.


  • Options
    #100
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Diceicle wrote: »
    I think it gives an air of collusion towards the whole process.
    Thud wrote: »
    highly likely the person who passed on his details was on the interview panel, if they are showing favor to the other candidate by sharing his name it's not a stretch to think they were biased towards the internal candidate

    I can agree with both of these, but my impression was that the OP felt the fact that the internal candidate knew who they were impacted the process?


  • Options
    #101
    Diceicle
    Registered Users Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭Diceicle


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I can agree with both of these, but my impression was that the OP felt the fact that the internal candidate knew who they were impacted the process?

    My take away was OP felt there was some inappropriate information sharing going on and the interview process itself was a little more than a charade the organisation had to go through to tick a HR box - and OP simply hadn't a snowballs chance of getting the job from the get-go.
    Having worked in similar situations I'm sympathetic as it seems to happen alot. Essentially someone steps up to a role at the time - they can be doing it years - but due to lack of budget cannot be appointed 'officially'. Its usually done on the understanding that eventually they'll be looked after so to speak.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Thud wrote: »
    highly likely the person who passed on his details was on the interview panel, if they are showing favor to the other candidate by sharing his name it's not a stretch to think they were biased towards the internal candidate

    TBH I was wondering something similar. I understood why the OP was unhappy with info being shared but not why OP was so adamant that the whole thing is a charade.

    While you might prove the other candidate knew who else was in the running, it is very difficult to prove anything like a bias.


  • Options
    #103
    beer enigma
    Registered Users Posts: 6,166 ✭✭✭beer enigma


    Until I get the letter, and I've just been told a 'full and frank letter was posted this evening I'm not going to comment much. Part of what gets my goat is that I'm a great believer in proper process and this was nothing of the like. However, They have promised a letter and to me proper process says I'll let them put their side.

    As to why I'm persuing, primarily bad process, but also because despite being assured I wasn't just being used to make up the numbers for the interview it was clearly a sham. I say this because I was told the prime reason I failed in getting the role was because the successful candidate had more experience in xxx..... I have never claimed to have experience in xxx, it's not on my cv and having asked the agency to check they told they had been assured it was not the most important requirement.

    Incidentally I understand that one of the other candidates has now asked the agency to offer their contact details to myself and one other as they feel there is an issue, so it's not just me.


  • Options
    #104
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    beer enigma wrote: »
    Until I get the letter, and I've just been told a 'full and frank letter was posted this evening I'm not going to comment much. Part of what gets my goat is that I'm a great believer in proper process and this was nothing of the like. However, They have promised a letter and to me proper process says I'll let them put their side.

    As to why I'm persuing, primarily bad process, but also because despite being assured I wasn't just being used to make up the numbers for the interview it was clearly a sham. I say this because I was told the prime reason I failed in getting the role was because the successful candidate had more experience in xxx..... I have never claimed to have experience in xxx, it's not on my cv and having asked the agency to check they told they had been assured it was not the most important requirement.

    Incidentally I understand that one of the other candidates has now asked the agency to offer their contact details to myself and one other as they feel there is an issue, so it's not just me.
    Game on.
    Fair play to ya.


  • Options
    #105
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm still a little unclear about how the internal candidate having the OPs linkedIn profile impacted the interview exactly?

    100% they shouldnt have had their details, but I'm lost as to how it made the interview unfair, unless the OP is suggesting that the internal candidate somehow lied to make themselves appear better than the OP?

    Imagine there are 4 people going for an interview.
    They each don't know who the other candidates are.
    Except 1
    This 1 can look at all the other profiles/experience/qualifications and prepare an interview to counter any deficiencies . E.g. "...well I may not have x qualification but I've applied for a course this September and have also gained more practical experience than someone who would have just studied the theory in college."

    For proof see the last OP's post above. The focus of the interview had shifted away from the job spec to accommodate the shoe-in's attributes.

    There are 2 issues.
    Data protecting breech.
    Breech of recruitment procedure.
    Maybe you could go after both separately OP !


  • Options
    #106
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Would I be correct in saying that the other candidates were asked if they felt the interview was fair ?
    I was asked this before, said "ya sure" and thought nothing more of it.


  • Options
    #107
    beer enigma
    Registered Users Posts: 6,166 ✭✭✭beer enigma


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Would I be correct in saying that the other candidates were asked if they felt the interview was fair ?
    I was asked this before, said "ya sure" and thought nothing more of it.

    Actually can't speak for the other interviewees but I was asked about for questions as to whether I thought it was fair, open etc


  • Options
    #108
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Imagine there are 4 people going for an interview.
    They each don't know who the other candidates are.
    Except 1
    This 1 can look at all the other profiles/experience/qualifications and prepare an interview to counter any deficiencies . E.g. "...well I may not have x qualification but I've applied for a course this September and have also gained more practical experience than someone who would have just studied the theory in college."
    Meh.
    The OP could do all that themselves anyway.
    Part of prepping for an interview is coming up with explanations for gaps/holes/etc in your CV/skills.


  • Options
    #109
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    I work in a state body and if interviews are happening for a role in my department, all staff get an email containing the shortlist of candidates. We also get to attend their presentations and ask questions.


  • Options
    #110
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,074 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    beer enigma wrote: »
    Actually can't speak for the other interviewees but I was asked about for questions as to whether I thought it was fair, open etc

    Seems like a very unusual question to be asking in the first place. The candidate is on the back foot, so isn't really in a position to have a full and frank discussion at that point. It looks like an attempt to gather evidence under a degree of duress.


  • Options
    #111
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,537 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    beer enigma wrote: »
    Just looking for a pointer here.

    I was approached by an agency suggesting I apply for a senior role being recruited for by a state funded body. I was made aware than an internal candidate had also applied (I was external) and that under the rules if an internal candidate had applied they opened it up to external applicants too.

    Initial question was that I didn't want to make up the numbers, but was assured no, they were very interested in my CV.

    Went through the process, 1st interview, 2nd interview (which I flew back early from a work meeting in Lisbon for). Two weeks later i got a call saying sorry the internal candidate had got the role.

    Firstly, i was surprised they confirmed the internal had got it, but then my surprise when i checked my Linkedin to find the internal candidate had viewed my profile BEFORE my second interview.

    I asked for feedback as to how this could happen, but getting a brick wall from the agency and the state body.

    My question is, who regulates state body recruitment ? - I'm not looking to get the job, more that this is raised. surely under Data Protection my details should not have been passed across the the other candidate, let alone under fair competition

    Our company send you the names of other candidates who are called for interviews.
    It’s a large stated owned electricity company.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 29,074 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    ted1 wrote: »
    Our company send you the names of other candidates who are called for interviews.
    It’s a large stated owned electricity company.

    Bizarre, and almost certainly a breach of Data Protection law if the other candidates do not given explicit permission for this.


  • Options
    #113
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Meh.
    The OP could do all that themselves anyway..
    What, do background research on people they don't know?
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Part of prepping for an interview is coming up with explanations for gaps/holes/etc in your CV/skills.

    Ya sure, play your own game and all that. But dont forget it's a competition between candidates. What you think might be an advantage and unique for you, someone else could talk it down knowing that you'll be talking it up.
    Likewise if someone sees deficiencies in your CV they can highlight them.


  • Options
    #114
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Seems like a very unusual question to be asking in the first place. The candidate is on the back foot, so isn't really in a position to have a full and frank discussion at that point. It looks like an attempt to gather evidence under a degree of duress.

    I haven't gone for that many jobs in the PS but Ive been asked it twice.


  • Options
    #115
    IITYWYBMAD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Meh.
    The OP could do all that themselves anyway.
    Part of prepping for an interview is coming up with explanations for gaps/holes/etc in your CV/skills.

    That's assuming you have gaps/holes/etc.

    The OP has stated that they were not chosen because they were told the other candidate had more experience in xxx. The OP says that they NEVER claimed to have experience in xxx and had the good knowledge to check with the agency as to whether this was a requirement, and was told it was not.

    My issue is that given it appears the successful candidate was given the OP's name, what else was shared with them? How much of an advantage was given to the successful candidate. We'll probably never know, but the process stinks, and leaves too many questions unanswered.


Advertisement