Reasons to pass someone over for a promotion

[Greebish]

If an employee has repeatedly spoken to management about how unhappy he is and how he is looking for other jobs, is this a valid legal reason not to give him a promotion for a position that has become available, irrespective of their ability to do the job or not?

Well more information would be helpful here but just based on what you have said, if someone is unhappy in their role and had made it clear they are looking outside the company for other roles, why on earth would their current company promote them into a position which you have indicated they may not even be able to do?

Did this person even apply for the promotion? Were they interviewed and if so, how did they answer the questions about their stated unhappiness with their current job? Would things have changed if they were promoted or would they have been even worse?

Sorry, I'm just paranoid I'll out myself!

This hasn't happened yet - the business is undergoing a restructuring and I'm trying to head off any future unpleasant situations as I know that despite professing unhappiness etc, he will still be incensed at being passed over, especially as he has been occupying the "promotion" position (albeit as maternity cover) for the last few months.

Just wanted to be sure that if they applied and went through the interview process, it was legal to refuse them the promotion due to lack of commitment or something similar.

Which position is he unhappy in? The current cover one or his previous one? How is he performing in the current role? If he is not meeting his targets, is he being performance managed in this role? If he is unhappy, are actual steps being taken to resolve his unhappiness (assuming that he has specific concerns, rather than a general whinge about how unfair the whole world is!)?

In both! Previous job's gripes - he was ambitious and wanted current job. Current job's gripes - despite occupying a position with more responsibility, he doesn't feel everybody gives him the "respect" he deserves and is continuing to treat him as if he hadn't been temporarily promoted.

Current role - other colleagues are annoyed at his constant interference and his inability to stay out of their tasks. Going to keep this a bit vague, but it's meant that he has been failing to comply with some aspects of the law and has been given a verbal warning with the explanation that if it continues, further disciplinary action will be taken. As his main complaint is about respect, it's quite hard to rectify as I can't force other people to behave as he'd wish! (nor would I want to).

He's also unhappy with his other team members that he manages (only 2 as very small team) but has never got on with anybody that he's worked with and everyone in all his previous teams have been unhappy at working with him. To be honest, he'd be doing us a favour by leaving and I certainly don't want to promote him permanently but I don't want to leave myself open to tribunals etc.

Is he being given demonstrable support in his cover role ? One to ones, coaching of issues etc. a lot of what you are saying , apart from the warning is heresay and office gossip unless it's evidenced. You would have to demonstrate that someone is more competent / capable than him for the role through a fair process surely.

If he was to apply for the position, the only things that we would focus on would be his competency - the other colleagues' issues wouldn't have come into it. I was just wondering whether his repeated mentions of looking for other jobs could be a factor to consider in the process, or whether it would be deemed irrelevant by the law.

He has been booked onto further training, but I suppose we could do more in terms of coaching.

Don't forget you need to not pass over the person on maternity just because she is on maternity. So actually if it is a queuing system she is at the front.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - the promotion is available because she's informed us she's not coming back after maternity.

I don't know about the legalities, but I don't think that looking for other positions necessarily indicates lack of commitment, though I understand why employers might think it is. Receiving a warning for recent conduct with that role is reason enough though, surely?

Could you not say something vague like that you feel there is a need for a 'fresh approach within the team'?

I certainly would not mention the lack of commitment as a reason not to give him the job.

It simply sounds like he is not up to a managerial position. I would focus on the non compliance with the law aspect - that is shocking if he wants to be promoted.

However it depends very much on who applies for the job. Competency based assessment is the way to go.

I wouldn't even mention it, the warning is enough to pass him over.