to be completely uncomfortable with this HR issue

[pobblewhohastoes]

And not know what to do about it?

Name changed for obvious reasons.

I work for a large well known company. There's a restructure going on which HR have been asked for their input on. They have authorised a process which I think is at best ill advised and possibly will result in a grievance/ employment law claim. I'm really nervous because I am part of the restructure and what they have advised is plainly wrong to me, even though I am no employment law expert (although i do have legal knowledge just not in that field).

This is really worrying me, what do I do?

I think it's hard to advise on without knowing the details but I understand why that would be difficult.

Have you spoke to somebody senior and told them your concerns?

Are you part of a union you could go to?

Keep a log of any conversations you have or any emails about it so you've got some evidence that you had concerns and that you're not in support of the new process, just in case anything comes to bite you on the bum.

Go and see head of HR with your concerns?

Have you communicated in writing to your line manager your concerns, and why you think what is happening is not legally compliant? Or don't you feel able?

I'm trying not to be too specific, but in essence they invited applications (internal only) for 3 identical roles, interviewed the applicants but despite 3 people scoring very well and showing potential, one is now not getting the role due to personal issues (which aren't relevant but have been put forward by manager as reason not to give them the job) and 3rd role now going to someone else in dept who didn't even apply.

We're not in a union. All those senior to me are happy HR are ok with it.

HR have been asked for their input, presumably they've ran it past whatever employment law team they have and are happy either with the approach or the risk?

I have intimate knowledge of a family owned firm and tbh if the owner says 'jump', HR says 'jumpings not a good idea because it could potentially lead to a claim or tribunal', the owner says 'I hear what you're saying, now kindly jump' HR then says 'how high'.

They are only there to advise the business, if the business is hell bent on doing the wrong thing there's little HR can do except record their objection and let them get on with it.

Are you directly affected by the incorrect course of action? If so, then this might be a way of raising it - you could talk the Head of HR and say that you have looked into it from a personal perspective and it doesn't seem to be quite right so they might want to double check.

If you are not directly affected then I would focus on the potential litigation / cost risk. Speak to your Head of HR and ask them to double check the advice on this point as it may have cost and time implications if its not done properly.

As someone else has already said, I don't doubt that their own employment law specialists are happy with it. I used to work for a large national company & they had their own internal legal team.
HR can express concerns but ultimately if a business decision has been made, it is unlikely they would be able to derail it unless they could prove in it resulting in a very hefty (100s of 1000s of £) legal bill - or possibly a high profile law suit which could be bad PR.

It would be nice to think that businesses follwed the letter of the law where employment issues are concerned but sadly this sort of thing happens every day in many companies big & small, doesn't make it right but that's life unfortunately.I work in HR & wish I had a pound for every time a conversation started "we want to do X, how can we do that without anyone taking us to court/ tribunal/ the papers"
Hopefully this doesn't impact you personally.

It has a potential to impact me professionally. And I just feel very uncomfortable knowing correct processes have not been followed.

There is no inhouse legal. I'm certain no advice has been sought by HR.

Id be in a difficult position going to HR director because those I report to think it's fine (even though it clearly isn't), I'd be going against them. Even though they're just blithely following 1 person in HR.

talk to ACAS

oh and join a union!

Can you get info from FSB or local chamber of commerce? They can provide legal info to members.

You also need to be sure the person going doesn't want to go... I could imagine someone thinking something was up with my own redundancy situation, someone less qualified than me was appointed - but the difference was I didn't want to stay with the company, so we all agreed it was fairer that I went and a person who desperately wanted to keep their job had that opportunity.

Do you know that correct processes haven't been followed or do you believe that correct processes haven't been followed but you are not an expert and not privy to all the facts?

If its the latter, then there may not be much you can do. You could flag it to your senior people by email along the lines of "I assume HR has advised you in respect of xxx as its important the Company gets this right" and then back off. You have flagged the risk to senior people and it's for them to ask the experts in HR and rely on their advice. If it bites them on the bum you will have an email showing you did warn your managers of a potential problem.

Are the "personal reasons" cited the kind of thing that could fall foul of equality law (e.g. Person is ill, has caring responsibilities etc)

Lonny has summed it up very well.

No matter what processes a company might run, there really isn't anything to stop anyone being appointed to any role, as long as there is no illegal discrimination going on. This is the case for internal or external recruitment. They could appoint who they like without any processes if they so wish.

An unsuccessful candidate doesn't have recourse to a tribunal (unless it's a discrimination claim). They could raise a grievance but there is every chance the company would say they didn't make the grade, and there was a better appointee for the position.

If these were external candidates who had been interviewed and had scored highly they would still normally be subject to reference checks before being offered the position.

Their current manager is effectively the reference for an internal candidate and if they have flagged up something that may impact on that person's ability to do the job (timekeeping? sick record? disciplinary record?) they are entitled to mention it and management are entitled not to offer the position on that basis so I don't see that part of it as an issue.

I'd be a bit about them offering it to someone who hadn't applied or been through the same interview procedure though. Are you sure they haven't done some kind of secondary application process as they hadn't filled all 3 roles in the first round?

There's been no further selection process. I know that because I'm the person who did all the interviews.

If there was a genuine reason to exclude someone based on past performance they should not have been allowed to apply in the first place. This is not a redundancy situation to clarify, more that certain people are being promoted.

It makes an entire mockery of a very fair selection process when you say A can't have the job for reasons that existed before the selection process began. And that B can have a role they never even applied for.

The selection process was agreed and communicated to all as being interview based, they are new roles so experience was expressly not to be taken into account. Candidate B has no more experience and I have no idea how they'd perform in interview because they've not been through that process.

I worked for a massive Government organisation that genuinely thought it could exclude women on maternity leave from applying for voluntary redundancy.

The local authority here has been taken to judicial review 3 times in the past year for making decisions it couldn't legally make.

Not all legal advice is up to the job!

Anyway, I took the voluntary redundancy (didn't even have to mention the tribunal ) and I am now an independent (and fully qualified) HR consultant.

Based on what you've said they would be on extremely dodgy ground if this were a redundancy situation. As it isn't, and it's simply restructuring they can pretty much do what they like (assuming not public sector, although even they will usually find a way). Moral? No, but not unlawful.

They can promote anyone as long as they aren't discriminating on protected characteristics. No dodgy about it.

The test for unfair dismissal/selection for redundancy is laughably easy to meet.

All an employer needs to do us demonstrate that they have considered alternatives (however scant the consideration) and followed a consistent process.

ACAS have an excellent free helpline if you want some basic advice. Tbh in these circumstances, I would want to feel very sure of my arguments if I was going to raise concerns.

I see that you've clarified that it's not a redundancy/dismissal situation.

In that case, as others have said, they can restructure and promote whoever they like - as long as their criteria doesn't discriminate against those with protected characteristics.

ACAS aren't legal experts and their advice should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

Disappointed I did say basic advice - not legal advice. Employers wouldn't normally seek legal advice to implement policy decisions.