Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

would you say this is discrimination?

24 replies

jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 13:24

DP was employed by a large company via a graduate scheme. During this time his manager had taken an unfounded disliking to him and went out of his way to ensure DP wasn't taken on as an employee at the end of his two year course.

After DP received his termination letter he applied for a different job within the same company. At his interview the employer was really impressed with him and outright told him that he wanted him to work for them and invited him back for a second interview. Before the date of the second interview was set, the employer (lets call him X) was informed that actually he no longer gets to decide who he employs and the directors (who are very friendly with his old manager) get to decide instead. They have chosen not to employ him despite the fact that both employers from that branch really want him working there.

We called the tribuneral people earlier and they told us that this wasn't discrimination because and I quote ' they haven't discriminated against your race, age, or sexual orientation'

But in our eyes they have discriminated against him, he hasn't got the job because his old manager has taken a disliking against him. He was not refused the job because he wasn't qualified enough or have the necessary skills. In fact he was told he was perfect and just what they was looking for. He was refused because his old managers personal problem with him and that isn't right.

Where do we stand with this? what do we do?

Sorry if I missed anything important I am happy to give more details if need be

OP posts:
grocklebox · 07/10/2014 13:27

afaik there is no law to protect you from dislike. If you go for an interview you can be just what they want on paper but they simply don't like you, or think you won't fit in, you won't gte the job.

It's unfair, but I don't think its illegal. Discrimination is based on perception of you in a category, not of you as an individual.

mymummademelistentoshitmusic · 07/10/2014 13:27

How on earth do we know if the 'dislike' was unfounded? Actually how do you? You only have one side. I'm a bit astounded you've tried to chase this up legally. It's a job he never got. Get over it.

Original poster
jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 13:31

I should add that his old manager was a bully who did all he could to make DPs work life hell.

Also up until DP applied for the other job X was solely in charge of who he employed. As soon as DPs name was in the hat the rules changed. Now that DP has been told he definitely wont get the job, X IS BACK IN CHARGE OF WHO HE DOES OR DOES NOT EMPLOY.

SORRY ABOUT CAPS, MY TABLET WONT LET ME TAKE THEM OFF FOR SOME REASON.

OP posts:
PetulaGordino · 07/10/2014 13:31

it's galling and shakes the self-esteem but not a lot you can do. chances are if the new hiring manager had been kept within the decision-making process might well have spoken more with the old manager and decided against your H

PetulaGordino · 07/10/2014 13:32

i'm not sure why your H would want to work for this company anyway, it sounds horrible

Original poster
jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 13:36

Grockle the person doing the interview wanted him to work for them. The person who dislikes him has nothing at all to do with that side of the company.

To clarify X had a job opening and was in sole charge of who he did or did not employ. 4 people applied for the job, all was fine he was still in control. DP applied and all of sudden it was out of his hands and had no choice on whether he employed him or not. The directors wouldn't allow X to employ him. since this has been established X is back in charge of who he does or does not employ.

OP posts:
Original poster
jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 13:38

petula

I doubt it as X has said that he agrees this is unfair and will backmDP up all the way if it comes to it.

OP posts:
titchy · 07/10/2014 13:40

Well you know where you stand - you called the tribunal people and they said it wasn't any sort of illegal discrimination. So you can't do anything. Mumsnet isn't bigger than a tribunal you know!

Yes they've discriminated against him as a person - but they're allowed to.

TheGirlFromIpanema · 07/10/2014 13:41

Sorry but can't help giggling at tribuneral Grin

Reality is though that your dh has not been discriminated against. Someone just doesn't like him/doesn't want him working there for whatever reason.

Shrug it off and move on is the best thing to do.

PetulaGordino · 07/10/2014 13:41

does your H need this company for references for future jobs?

PetulaGordino · 07/10/2014 13:42

DP sorry - not sure why i keep typing H

mymummademelistentoshitmusic · 07/10/2014 13:53

And directors would always be able to override their employees wishes as to who is employed by them. But as I said, you only have the side your dh has told you. Get over it.

PetulaGordino · 07/10/2014 13:58

seriously, it sounds like it would be a nightmare working for them and not worth getting into a groundless dispute either. your dp needs to take what he can from this - the 2-year training at their expense, and some good competency-based responses about working with someone with whom you have a difficult relationship

FishWithABicycle · 07/10/2014 14:01

No it's not discrimination. It's utter crapness on the part of the company but your DH should therefore just not want to work for them.

He shouldn't find too much difficulty getting an equivalent job at the company's main competitor if he's that good. OR there could be a perfectly legitimate reason why the old boss didn't think he was much good, which he isn't telling you.

grocklebox · 07/10/2014 15:29

yes I know, that was an example. Someone not liking you is not discrimination, and someone not liking you is an ok reason for them to not give you a job.

Original poster
jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 16:07

But the person giving the job did like him. He fought his corner for a fortnight trying to get him that job. The person who dislikes him has absolutely nothing to do with this side of the company so it should be irrelevant whether he likes him or not.

I understand that if a person doesn't like you then they don't have to give you the job. But I don't see how its fair that a person unrelated to this job, Who will be working 100miles away on another site has enough pull within the company to make it impossible for him to be given a job there. If the actual employer disliked him then fair enough, but as it stands he did like him and did want to employ him.

OP posts:
Collaborate · 07/10/2014 17:27

But the person who doesn't like him is a director of the company. Everything to do with the company is his business. The company is the employer, not X. A company is represented by its directors. You need to accept it and move on.

PetulaGordino · 07/10/2014 17:29

it might be unfair but it's not unlawful

by all means be cross about it, it all seems very unpleasant, but nothing can be done

Original poster
jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 18:41

collaborate he isn't the director. He is an area manager for a completely different site at a totally different side of the company. After working within the company for over 30 years he does however have a lot of pull with the director.

I see now that this isn't classed as discrimination, but it should be.

OP posts:
mymummademelistentoshitmusic · 07/10/2014 19:15

Of course it shouldn't. Stop being so silly.

NotCitrus · 07/10/2014 19:27

If he'd complained about bullying or unfair treatment while he was on his course, he might have had a case then, but I don't think there's anything to be done now.

grocklebox · 07/10/2014 19:37

If he works 100 miles away and would have had nothing at all to do with him, he must have a reason for going so far out of his way to have a say in the hirings (getting them to change hiring practices altogether?)...other than simply taking a dislike to him. That doesn't sound logical at all.
Perhaps there is more to this story than your partner is telling you.

Original poster
jellybelly701 · 07/10/2014 20:39

There is more to the story. But I wont go into to much detail here. Lets just say he wasn't too pleased that there was talk, between the directors, of DP running his own site once his course had finished. It took his manager over 25 years to progress to that level.

Up until then his manager was quite nice, even offered us free tickets to a concert. After there was talk about him running his own site his manager noticeably changed. Started trying to discipline him for petty stuff. Giving him a shit ton of his own paperwork that he HAD to complete and then complaining during his review that he was doing paperwork instead of other stuff. The list goes on.

Unfortunately DP did not make a formal complaint about the bullying. He did mention it to others off record but that's it. I told him over and over to complain but he didn't want to shoot himself in the foot.

OP posts:
Lunastarfish · 08/10/2014 18:42

You can only pursue a claim for discrimination if the less favourable treatment/dismissal was BECAUSE of a protected characteristic - age, sex, race, religion, gender reassignment or disability.

A manager not liking an employee is morally unfair but not legally unlawful. If your DP was employed for 2 years he may have a claim for unfair dismissal but he only has 3 months from the dismissal to submit a claim

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread