Grievance procedure. Passed over for a job.

[TittyBojangles]

My DH applied for an internal promotion along with one other applicant. They were both interviewed, the other guy got the job (despite less experience etc, but hey hoy, that's life). However, we KNOW that the job was offered to this guy before the interviews (he has admitted to this and said the manager felt he had to interview for 'legal reasons'). Why on earth the manager didn't just keep his mouth shut, do the interviews and give this guy the job anyway I do not know, but he didn't - is this grounds for a grievance?

I guess Im asking is there any point? I don't think he would want the job now anyway as it would be too awkward to work with that manager. But he would like to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else, the manager has a history of being generally crap. What are the possible outcomes? I mean, if they weren't going to offer him the job then what else is there?

I am aware this sounds a bit like sour grapes and if he'd not got the job fair and square then there would be no problem, but this manager is terrible (also likely to lie through his teeth about it) and needs confronting.... which my DH hasn't done as yet. Also, the person who got the job is likely to deny he was offered the job, but we do have someone else who no longer works for the company who knew about this at the time and would be willing to state this.

Any thoughts much appreciated.... happy to give more info if needed, was trying to keep this as brief as possible.

It may depend on the type of organisation: public sector has far more responsibilities in this area than a tiny business, for example. What level of HR systems/support is there? Your DH should talk to HR dept, if it exists, and check the procedures. But if it ended up as one person's word against another's (ie if the manager would just lie) then you might get nowhere.

It is not public sector, but a large national company.

I'm not sure what is to be gained by raising a grievance. If it's a large organisation then I think the best advice is to be professional and dignified and put himself in best position for next opportunity. IME a lot of people watch to see how people handle negative situations and it can be an opportunity to quietly impress.

What hermione said.

What would your DH be looking to gain out of a grievance? In a situation where there is an internal vacancy and both candidates are well known to the recruiting manager, it's extremely common for them to have made their mind up or at least be leaning strongly towards one candidate before the interviews. Almost inevitable.

The only thing the manager did wrong here was telling the other candidate beforehand. Raising a grievance might get his wrist slapped and he might then keep his mouth shut another time, but no outcomes will change and your DH's relationship with him and the perception others have of your DH will be damaged as a result.

That's exactly what I think really, nothing to be gained except getting the manager in trouble possibly. It doesn't seem to be the sort of organisation where being professional matters tho. And Noone else knows about the situation except the manager and the guy who got the job.... Hence seeing how dh handles this isn't really relevant. I don't know if its worth the hassle anyway really, which is why I posted here. Thanks for the replies.

If your DH will still work there, after the grievance process ends then he will have to still work around this manager. Who, by the way, sounds like the last person your DH would want to work for anyway.

Perhaps not getting the job is a blessing in disguise.

Dh has moved branches so no longer works with this manager, or the guy who got the job.

I agree it prob is a blessing in disguise, still annoying, not that he didn't get the job particularly, just the way the manager went about it.