Internal Vacancy went out day after my maternity leave started with five days to deadline....

[thunksheadontable]

Just wondering what my rights are.

I got the application in, just about. My mat leave started Monday, advert went out Tues with Sunday deadline but I didn't get to use my best references as I didn't hear about it.

The job is a role I have done in the past and I meet most but not all of the essential criteria as it has been graded higher than it really should have been. The previous post-holder has moved up in restructuring and I meet more of the essential criteria in terms of qualifications than she does..

However, I am concernedd that this previous post-holder (who will be on the interview panel and is a manager) really doesn't want me to have the job. We have had conflict in the past. I have to say I rarely have conflict with anyone and have nothing but good comments for my work from colleagues... but this person and I have had issues, often because she has asked me to do things that are not legally or clinically defensible and I have raised concerns about these things.

She has previously prevented me from getting an interview for a job I was well qualified to do on limited grounds.

I am 36 and a half weeks pregnant and I am concerned that:
a) they will not offer an interview
b) they will offer an interview around the date I am due or later
c) they will send the job out externally as I don't meet ALL essential criteria and THEN offer an interview around the date I am due

I wonder what the law would say about this. I think it's outrageous it has been put out at the grade it has because that requres qualifications as essential that the previous post-holder simply didn't have. The previous post-holder often did extremely dodgy things in her role and I have had to flag these up, yet she will be interviewing...

I am not expecting to get this job because of these issues to be honest, but I just wonder how far I should question things if I don't get an interview as I feel it will be down to professional jealousy and politics if I don't.

any thoughts?

If you don't meet all of the essential criteria surely you won't be shortlisted anyway.

Agree with choufleur if you don't meet all of the essential criteria, irrespective of whether or not you think they are essential, then you would not get an interview at any date.

Previous post-holder's qualifications and experience is irrelevant if the job has been re-graded or changed substantially - which it has been. You need to look at whether you meet the criteria for the job which has been advertised. Decisions about whether to interview candidates who do not meet every single one of the essential criteria will vary with the job and the recruiting manager - I've interviewed people who met all but one or two of them, but if there are loads of applicants who meet all the criteria, then managers may not interview people who don't.

Call ACAS and ask about the rules on advertising vacancies internally to staff going on maternity leave.

Employees on maternity leave must have access to internal vacancies, so if you don't have that, you can complain about that. How do internal vacancies usually get advertised? If you don't have access to them online you should request that they are emailed or sent to you.

However you did know about this one in time to apply so in terms of vacancies more generally, it's about ensuring there is a robust communication method for future vacancies.

In terms of what the law would say about your not being shortlisted or the job being advertised externally, well, probably not a lot really. If you don't meet the essential criteria then you don't and it would be incredibly difficult for you to argue that you should have been shortlisted and/or your pregnancy and maternity leave were a factor.

It hasn't been regraded.... she just doesn't meet the criteria for it at current grade which she has been paid at. Usually in our team what would happen is that it would then be downgraded (to save money) but the issue is the previous post-holder was being paid at this level despite the post not really meeting the criteria to be at this level (Agenda for Change). It has been basically argued she is doing these things in a way that's, well, potentially fraudulent. The job is not nor has it ever been structured in such a way that it deserves this sort of grading and this is not a change of grade for this post. I think most people just assumed (knowing that it should never have been this level) that it would be restructured in the event of it becoming vacant.

As it stands, because I have been doing the job, there are 63 items on the essential criteria list of which I meet about 58. The 5 in question are met by only one other member of staff who is graded at this level (about 7 on our team) and the previous post-holder/new manager doesn't and hasn't met any of these apart from one. Specifically, the post requires an MSc which she doesn't have, but the current role has inserted in that section a three day course which really is NOT at the same level. I've said I will self-fund to do this and I have done similar in another part of my role so have proved I can do this type of course and have the commitment to self-funding.

The criteria I don't meet are things like significant contribution to publications, presentations at international and national conferences and having a leading role in a national body in the area. This is really SO far from where anyone else in our team at this level is performing (with one exception), it's laughable... and I am arguably closer as I have been invited to present at a conference, have an article going to publication and contacts with national bodies that would surpass any of theirs...

I can't be more specific of course, but it really shocked me to see that this was what was expected in her role. Honestly, whoever does or doesn't do this role in the future I expect that it won't be easy in my field to find anyone who meets all the essential criteria and I bet you that the candidate that gets the job won't. I think it's pretty disgusting it's been graded this way, it seems really wrong that taxpayer's money is being put into paying out this sort of money for a job that in reality is being performed at a much lower level.

But I digress! I guess there's nothing I can do, but it is galling to see...

I'm not sure I'm following. The person you are talking about in your posts as not meeting the criteria in the ad is the previous postholder? Now moving elsewhere? Not competing with you for the job at all?

If I've understood that correctly then whether she meets the new criteria or not isn't relevant, and neither could you (for example) argue that the criteria had been engineered to give someone specific the job, as the person you seem concerned about isn't applying for it.

Well if you don't feel ready for it and would be working for someone for whom you have so little respect and do not trust, I'd walk away quickly if I were you. Why are you applying?

There's sort of an expectation on the team from colleagues other than the manager that I will because in terms of the skills required to do the day to day job I have them in bucketloads and the MSc I have makes me really qualified to do the work. Just not ready for the politics in this team.. Think any improvements suggested on evidence would be blocked, no commitment to quality. I'd like to see them get someone external who did meet the essential criteria and could do the job at a high level, but my experience is they won't employ anyone more qualified than they are.. everyone hedging bets in age of restructuring.. I wouldn't get a job with MSc in dep now for same reason. Very few people in my profession have this qualification, though really it should ne required according to national pay agreements. It's all a mess. I just don't want to see it get worse..

Can I paraphrase what I think you are meaning to say...

1. Previous post holder now has a different role, but will still be managing you or influencing your career.
2. Now that she has left the role it is vacant and she knows you will want it.
3. You think she has had the bar moved, so that your suitability now falls outside the role requirements
4. The actual role itself and what is required to perform the role in practice hasn't changed at all, but the regrading now means that lots of essential quals have now been added that will not actually be needed in practice
5. You feel this is being done deliberately to stop you getting the role
6. You think it unlikely that anyone will meet the criteria now set
7. You want to know what you can do about a woman you feel is sabotaging your chances of getting promoted fairly and squarely.

Is that it?

If so, then the first response is "Too bad. You fell out with someone, and brought up her shortcomings, but the mgmt still support her, so there's not much you can do, other than learn to not cross colleagues unless you know what your long term strategy is". Whilst it is nice to think we can air professional views without it affecting people's willingness to promote on capability grounds , in practice grudges are held and reverberate for a long long time. Although people should promote the best person for the job, they will take into account the relationships and ability of people to work together and if that's in question then they can easily choose to look elsewhere without it being 'wrong' to do so.

That gut reaction however is tempered by the fact that you have just gone on maternity leave. Whilst I think this is all driven by the woman not liking you, you could try to lay out a discrimination card, saying that you have been denied the role by dint of being PG and on ML. To my mind this smells a bit, morally, because I don't fundamentally think that your being PG has anything to do with it. But if you do think it's a strong factor, then that's slightly different. You will have to tell us more here before we can advise.

There is also a smidgeon of a chance that you could claim that the extra quals/publications required fall under age discrimination, but that would be a bit of a wild card to play.

If it were me I'd send a covering letter to all the people on the panel saying how much you want the role, why, and why you think you have the capability to perform the role despite not meeting X, Y and Z criteria. You could even suggest that if the role were to remain at the current grade then it would save org money and you would actually be overqualified for it. See what happens and report back.

Or have I got totally the wrong end of the stick here?

Almost, but not quite....

The role hasn't been regraded. It was basically part of a management role which was graded overall as a Principal's role.

Now the clinical component has been removed from the management role to form a new role. The clinical component is not by any stretch of the imagination a Principal role and in saying it is, it undermines the other clinical roles in the team which are all Senior and not Principal. It will be regraded again later in the year at which point it will become a Senior job (or I'll eat my hat).

The previous post-holder did not meet the criteria to do this clinical role at Principal level and the day to day practice of the job is not Principal either, it wouldn't meet the criteria if an independent person looked at what was being done or what needed to be done or scrutinised it in any way.

Normal practice in our team in this situation (where a role is made out of another role, losing an important element like financial or managerial responsibilty) is to downgrade the role. My own role is a Senior but when I gave up some work on return from mat leave, the portion of the role I had was downgraded to Generalist because I had to work independently and the person taking over could get support from me to do the role, changing the nature of proficiency needed for the post. If that makes sense.

I've never fallen out with the manager per se but I have challenged aspects of practice in our team which were approaching clinical negligence as is my legal, ethical and moral responsibility to do so. If i have to pay the price, well, that's one thing.. but I would do it again. I suppose that's the thing. It may well be that sticking up for what's right has scuppered my chances on this job but legally, morally and ethically I couldn't and wouldn't allow myself to be in a position where I couldn't voice concerns about clinical safety. So that may be all I need to think about in relation to this job and whether or not I get an interview.