Can DH interview me?

[notsohot]

Our small team is being reorganised - private sector - small Reduction in staff numbers is required. DH is team leader, but not my line manager. An interview process will determine who stays and who goes. It has been suggested that it is ok for DH to be part of the panel who interview me.
This can't be right, can it? This isn't fair, to other candidates or me. I have joked with DH that his life won't be worth living if I don't get a job - but there is a serious point, isn't there?
I plan to raise this with HR but is there anyone with more knowledge who can help me?

Oops, meant to say public sector, not private sector

Well there's no law against it if that's what you're asking but I agree it would be very foolish and unfair on everyone involved, you, your DH and the other candidates.

You don't say who has suggested it's ok, but I would be astonished if HR think this is fine.

The problem would be that someone who doesn't get the job could claim its unfair.

Our company would not allow it, because of possible problems later.

I wouldn't like it.

Thanks for the replies. My understanding - from DH - is that HR apparently say it is ok providing they are there.

I think HR are setting themselves up for a tribunal. Your colleagues will be less than amused, it will lead to bad feeling and could end up delaying you getting the job on a permanent basis if someone makes a complaint. Your husband should step away.

I think talking about tribunals is a bit over dramatic, there's nothing illegal here, and if the OPs DH was in a position to just give her the job without even an interview process that wouldn't be illegal either. Unfair, but not illegal, unless in the process he discriminated against someone from a protected group or something.

But it does seem a bit daft, as what value can your DH realistically add to an interview panel when you are the candidate? Surely everyone would get more out of the process if another manager was in your interview, is there no one else who can do it?

Actually flowery its not over the top.

A person could claim she had an unfair advantage. Giving her the job will benefit the him as well as her as they are a family.

There is a reason this isn't allowed in our company, because they have gone to tribunal before.

Yes of course a person could claim she had an unfair advantage.

But an unfair advantage in itself is not illegal unless there is something else in play as well. Poor practice, and asking for trouble, but not illegal.

But a tribunal can be held without something technically 'illegal' happening. The complainant would have a basis for a complaint. So its not over the top.

This is deciding who stays and who goes. Also if the OP gets to keep her job, I imagine it would make things difficult for her.

I don't see how he can ethically be part of making a decision about if his wife stays or goes.

He can do it, if he should do it is another question.

To bring a claim in a tribunal there has to be a legal basis for that claim, so in the absence of any employment or contract laws having been breached, an unfair advantage in itself is not a basis for a claim in a tribunal, no.

Yes it is.

Making the redundancy procedure unfair, is enough to bring a tribunal. I have seen it occur.

it may be legal for her dh to interview. However giving an unfair advantage is not. So the tribunal will decode if they have acting illegally or not.

"But a tribunal can be held without something technically 'illegal' happening"

Where have you heard that from, seriously, with such authority that you are comfortable advising people of that on an employment forum?

If that were the case the tribunal system would be completely overrun with people whinging about things that happened at work that weren't fair.

If someone lost their job, and the redundancy process was unfair, and they should not have been selected, that would be unfair dismissal, which would be a law having been breached. That may have been what you have "seen happen".

You cannot bring a tribunal claim without having a law you are claiming the employer has broken, whatever you've been told by someone who doesn't know what on earth they are talking about.

Do you mean to be so condesending?

My point is the legality will be hashed out at the tribunal.

While its not illegal for him to interview her, it can be taken to tribunal. Because there is a chance of abuse of position.

Not something I was told. But something I was involved in.

The company hadn't done anything illegal (is allowing a family member to interview) but from that it had become unfair. So yes was taken to tribunal.

That's why its not 'over the top' to mention it could end up at tribunal. And note the inverted commas around 'illegal'.

Of course I should listen to some random on the internet rather than give the OP the situation from my experience.

Here it is, put another way.

While the OPs dh interviewing her is not illegal itself. It leaves the company and possibly the dh wide open to be accused of illegalities.

it could be that the dh is above board and the tribunal finds he didn't show favouritism. Therefore he did not do anything 'illegal', but it still went to tribunal.

I believe the op wants to avoid this situation altogether.

I'm sorry, when you said "But a tribunal can be held without something technically 'illegal' happening" I assumed that was your point. Not that whether someone is illegal or not will be hashed out at a tribunal, which is an entirely different point and not one I would disagree with or have disagreed with.

Of course a tribunal will decide whether the law the employee is claiming the employer has breached has in fact been breached. No one claimed otherwise. But the employee has to have a law they are claiming has been breached to make the claim.

Of course I am a 'random' on the internet, and you are free not to listen to me or anyone else, as is the OP. As usual I would advise the OP and anyone else reading to take note of the disclaimer at the head of this topic before assuming anything someone posts on these thread is gospel and that anyone (including me) who posts legal advice actually knows what they are talking about.

Anyone is free to decide and say I don't know what I'm talking about if they like, I don't mind at all.