Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To expect to being given a valid reason as to why I was not given a job, not , "it was easier for her to have it"

33 replies

herdingcats · 14/12/2011 11:11

I enquired about a post where I work, they gave me details and said they were in the planning / budgetting stage and would let me know.
the next thing I know is I get an email to say :Thank you to you both for showing interest in the ICT support job.
As the hours are just before school it was felt that this would be easier for *** who would be here in the mornings anyway.
Thank you both once again for your interest
That was a good way to interview and I think it beggars belief that they think it is a valid reason to give the other lady the jobShockAngry
To rub salt into the wounds I was in doing a time sheet today and another member of staff was struggling, and an office staff member said herding knows what to do on the computer , she will show you . I am flabbergasted by their audacity

OP posts:
reallytired · 14/12/2011 11:20

That is grim. Did you have a technical interview? Surely the person who gets an IT support job should be decided on the score of the technical interview or possibly the experience the candidates have or qualifications. Ie. who is TECHNICALLY the most skilled for the job.

"As the hours are just before school it was felt that this would be easier for * who would be here in the mornings anyway. "

If they are deciding not to employ you because they don't know how you are going to manage the childcare then that is illegal.

Does the other candiate posess a penius?

SoupDragon · 14/12/2011 11:24

"Does the other candiate posess a penius?"

I hope not given the OP referred to the candidate as a her in the title and as a lady in the post :o

DoesNotGiveAFig · 14/12/2011 11:28

penis

knockneedandknackered · 14/12/2011 11:29

thats an easy copout and so unfair really Sad

DoesNotGiveAFig · 14/12/2011 11:29

teehee peenyus

Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 11:33

There was no interview! I did think to myself ,if there had been some sort of assessment or test, I would accept that.
also no the other person has no penis, there are none of the male species where I work.
Been on the phone to ACAS, they say i can raise an informal grievence and if that does not answer the wrongs of the procedure, I can raise it to formal and I would be able to have representation.

OP posts:
altinkum · 14/12/2011 11:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 11:39

I am now off to said workplace to ask some more questions. Will report back later.
I did reply to the email ,and said I had childcare in place, so that would not have been an issue.
I also think it is not anything to do with them as to how I manage childcare, especially as I had told them at the point of enquiry it was already in place should I need it Sad

OP posts:
squeakytoy · 14/12/2011 11:39

Where does it say she hasnt been given the job because she has children?

If one member of staff who applied works mornings anyway, and the other works afternoon, and both have the same technical abilities, and the job is in addition to the existing job, then it would make sense to give the job to the one who will not need to make an extra two journeys a day.

knockneedandknackered · 14/12/2011 11:39

if it matters to you you could do what you suggested but i suspect it would make life inpossible working there.

EveryDayImShuffling · 14/12/2011 11:42

Thats ridiculous!! What happened to the selection process and interviews!?

Does the other candidate have a penis or is she sleeping with the boss?? Xmas Blush

I recently didn't get a job and when I asked for interview feedback I was told that the for the question about teamwork, it was the answer that gave the other candidate the edge. Because she mentioned a work night out to get to know others and I didn't!! Well of course I didn't i'm a single parent who struggles to get babysitters!!! I was fuming.Xmas Angry

Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 11:42

squeaky -this has nothing to do with technical ablities, as was in the email from them, the reason they gave her the job was because it was "easy"
Neither of us do a job in there that has anything to do with the job advertised.

OP posts:
Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 11:43

knocked - It will make it impossible, but it does not mean they should get away with it!

OP posts:
mateysmum · 14/12/2011 11:46

Appalling "mushroom" management technique.

If this is the best they can do, they don't deserve you. Polish up your CV and look elsewhere.

knockneedandknackered · 14/12/2011 11:47

if it means a lot to the op make a stand its time people gave working mums the credit they deserve.

slavetofilofax · 14/12/2011 11:48

I think you have cause to be annoyed about the procedure that was followed, or not as the case may be, but you don't have cause to complain that she got the job over you.

If you both work there, they probably know both of you fairly well and have a good idea of the standard of your work. They probably came to the conclusion that there is no difference between the two of you in terms of who could do the job better, so it made sense to give the job to the person who wouldn't require them to do a whole new contract with hours changes reflected in it.

The way you are talking about them 'rubbing salt in the wound' says a lot about the way you seem to be reacting. If you had an attitude of always being willing to help a colleague, you wouldn't have seen it as rubbing salt in the wound. You would see it for what it was, one person trying to help another person by letting them know who mich know how to help. You are being over sensitive about that, so you could well be over reacting about the rest of it. Also, maybe the lady who got the job wouldn't have thought twice about helping out if she had been in your position and your employers are aware that she is more willing to help her team than you are, so chose her over you.

TheFrogs · 14/12/2011 12:16

I had something very similiar happen to me except I was made redundant. I actually had a case for sex discrimination even though the other candidate was female. We were not interviewed or even invited to reapply for our job, she was automatically given the job on the basis that she was childless and therefore apparently "more reliable".

I also experienced something along those lines in my next job and again ended up redundant but they had a sharp HR dept who did it in a very sneaky manner so there wasn't much I could do.

I won the case with the first company and I think its a pity so many women dont take the matter further. Employers shouldn't be able to get away with it.

MixedBerries · 14/12/2011 12:20

I've worked in HR and I would say that's a shining example of indirect discrimination. You would have a case if you could be bothered to complain through official channels. (I don't mean that you're being lazy, I mean putting in an official complaint is stressful, time consuming, sometimes expensive and really more stressful than just accepting what they say. Not right IMO).

hackmum · 14/12/2011 12:21

Their mistake was not to lie in the letter! It was "easier" to give it to X is a pathetic reason. The thing is, I'm not sure whether it's illegal or not - obviously it's dodgy but I'm not sure the law says you have to have fair internal recruitment procedures in place (aside from not being able to discriminate on grounds of sex, age, sexuality, race and religion). I mean, you're not allowed to make a decision based on whether someone has children, but they could argue that the fact that you have children is nothing to do with it.

Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 14:38

I have been in and spoken to the person who sent the email. she has freely admitted they did not give me the job ,as it may cause me childcare issues.
That is a form of discrimination, and as such I can raise a formal grievence.
On discussion about it, the lady has told me now it was wrong and it has to be addressed.
Slave- can I just say I don't want to say what my place of work is involved in, but its safe to say my role and the other persons role at the moment have nothing at all to do with the new post. We would both have to a new contract for the position. I did help the person in queston this morning, but it still was wrong . The other candidate may well have helped too. I have to do my timesheets in my own time, although they tell you not to, as my job is not office based normally. So my help was given not only freely ,but in my own time .
Thereis to be a meeting of the head this afternoon ,and the lady I spoke to thinks the job will have to be re-advertised ,with a proper interview process.

OP posts:
Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 14:39

Sorry about the typos, as you can see I'm not a secretary Grin

OP posts:
Mishy1234 · 14/12/2011 14:48

Sounds extremely dodgy to me.

Glad you have had a result OP. At least they have recognised they are in the wrong and are planning on fixing it.

MixedBerries · 14/12/2011 16:12

Glad to hear you are raising a grievance. They've acted v stupidly never mind unfairly. Will you apply if it's readvertised?

Original poster
herdingcats · 14/12/2011 16:36

I am not sure, as I think they have made my position impossible, even doing what I do now. Never mind in a new post.
I think that somewhere that says they want an upfront, straight forward way of working, with a Christian ethos to boot is sadly lacking when things like this happenSad

OP posts:
MixedBerries · 14/12/2011 16:58

Quite. Well, maybe they'll learn a lesson from this. Good luck whatever you do!