transfer panel injustice. public service.

LegacyUser

I was passed over for a transfer despite the employer (large public service) admitting that an error had been made in the management of the panel. Basically , policy changed a couple of years ago. I adhered to new policy. Others ("by error") did not have to adhere to the new policy given an "oversight in the new panel database" and thus held higher position to me as they were off the old panel and I was ahead on the new panel. Basically I have been given an apology, sure errors are made, the other person has been offered the job and so be it, nothing to be done here.

NOW, the "new/ current" transfer policy was not honoured yet I've been told that the job offer needs to be honoured. Go figure. The job was mine but it seems, tough luck!

I've been onto the UNion but have little faith as they are not likely(I'm told by independent source) to support one member against another. I MAY (i'm told, again by independent source) be entitled to make a case for some form of redress as a serious error was made and I lost out on a job transfer opportunity that in itself is EXTREMELY rare.

Thoughts? Loathe as I am to being a hard-ass, there are others who wouldn't even hesitate. Has anyone come up against a similar scenario and gone legal??? I'm very reluctant but flipping raging that this has happened and I'm losing out. That person has a start date etc so time is running out.

_Brian

My understanding is that a position on a panel isn’t legally binding, where a job offer is a form of contract.

I think there would be a stronger case for the other candidate should they welch on the job offer than any case you may have.

It’s a bit pants in fairness and your right not to expect the union to do anything for you.

LegacyUser

Even if it can be proven that the employer did not follow policy?

Surely I must have a case for redress at least?

LegacyUser

What about the fact that I raised a concern about the policy within a week of the job being offered and the contract surely was not in place that quickly? If I could prove that I queried the process and lack of adherence to policy before the contract was drawn up, does that give me any leverage? It took them a whole week to get back to me and THEN fess up about an error and apologise.

LegacyUser

Apologies but as I'm unregistered, I can't edit my posts.

If the transfer panel is not binding, what about the fact that the other person was also on a transfer panel, and thus that person's transfer was not binding either? I am really upset about this and trying to find an angle here.

rock22

_Brian wrote: »

.. and your right not to expect the union to do anything for you.

Why do you say this? ( assuming you meant "you're" rather than your).

I would certainly go to your union, they will do nothing unless you raise the matter with them. They may negotiate moving you to the top of the transfer. In a large organisation positions can become available quite regularly.

_Brian

rock22 wrote: »

Why do you say this? ( assuming you meant "you're" rather than your).

I would certainly go to your union, they will do nothing unless you raise the matter with them. They may negotiate moving you to the top of the transfer. In a large organisation positions can become available quite regularly.

That’s what boards needs, more grammar Nazis

Yea !!

evolving_doors

_Brian wrote: »

That’s what boards needs, more grammar Nazis

Yea !!

In fairness I was reading that sentence and couldn't understand it until Rock22 clarified it.

Anyhow... does the place have a policy document on transfers / jobs / apeals etc?
Go in firm with the union. Don't be happy just to be restating your position with a secretary or receptionist and them promising to get back to you. Look for a face to face meeting.
If time is pressing then there are employment solicitors you could ring and get a meeting.

It might help if you try and search for similar cases using key words.

Time

You should talk to a solicitor. It’s clear the entire process was procedurally unfair and flawed throughout and you have a legitimate expectation that the rules in place will be followed. Whilst you don’t have a right to the position, you probably would have a case for the process run over, with the correct procedures followed

KaneToad

_Brian wrote: »

That’s what boards needs, more grammar Nazis

Yea !!

I don't think this is an example of grammar nazi. The post was very ambigious due to the incorrect use of "your" (possession) instead of you're (you are). This was compounded by the word "right" also having a double meaning...

a) entitlement
b) correct

The clarification was entirely justified, in my, pedantic, opinion.

LegacyUser

Time wrote: »

You should talk to a solicitor. It’s clear the entire process was procedurally unfair and flawed throughout and you have a legitimate expectation that the rules in place will be followed. Whilst you don’t have a right to the position, you probably would have a case for the process run over, with the correct procedures followed

Sorry but what do you mean by "case for the process run over" ?

LegacyUser

Time wrote: »

You should talk to a solicitor. It’s clear the entire process was procedurally unfair and flawed throughout and you have a legitimate expectation that the rules in place will be followed. Whilst you don’t have a right to the position, you probably would have a case for the process run over, with the correct procedures followed

Sorry could you please explain or give an example? Thanks so much.

Riskymove

unregistered wrote: »

Sorry but what do you mean by "case for the process run over" ?

I believe he means for the assignment to be canceled and the process to be "run again"