CF unqualified applicant got the job

[Justilou1]

My DH has been working in a position that will likely be rolled in with another at the end of the year. It is a specialist government job with a lot of competition. (In Australia, but Govt is Govt, pretty much...) The job description was very clear. He has just been informed that the person who was appointed is not qualified to have even applied for the position, so either they lied in their application, or the person responsible for checking their qualifications did not do so. My question is this... How does it look if my DH complains? Does it further his chances or shoot him in the foot completely? (He can show proof that the other guy has no professional qualifications, btw.)

Actually in this case, your DH has had calls from others, I think he 100% needs to go and chat with HR. Tell them this has happened and ask for a contact number or email, so he can pass the info on to the people who have called him.
That way he covers his own back.

Why on earth have you label this person a CF just because they got a job that your husband wanted? Bizarre!!

You really don't know the ins and outs do tbh, you should keep your jealous nose out.

He has a his review on Tuesday, so hopefully all of this will be out in the open by then. What a weird turn of events!!!

I’d go the feedback route. Don’t complain, it’ll look bitter and petty. Maybe there is a reason your DH wasn’t successful, he needs to concentrate on that rather than the other person.

@Justilou1

The successful applicant hasn’t worked either in that SPECIFIC field or in Government at all. It is very strange. My DH has been receiving phone calls all day from people regarding this applicant’s appointment. While it is a Government position, it is a sports coaching position. They have turned down several people who are experienced coaches of that specific sport who meet the criteria and have chosen someone with no experience in this sport and no professional qualifications. Legally, I don’t see how it can hold water.

Can this person even do the job then?

Yes it needs raising out of concern. How can he possibly do a job he has no experience off or even have the required qualifications. They will be a liability and may possibly open then them up to legal proceedings. I would imagine HR would be interested to know to be able to protect the office.

Well, many, many years ago I was working in a University and a job came up in another department. They came to me for some specific input about the job advert and specification as I was working in the field, but from a different angle.

Part of the essential job spec asked for a masters qualification, I had a degree but had never gone on to masters level. However, I was actually working at that level in my own department. I hesitated a bit but then asked whether they would accept an application from me, despite my lack of a masters. They were OK about it, I interviewed along with others and actually got the job. I never did do the masters, there was no point, I was successful in the role and worked in that department for 5 good years.

Are you sure the situation you describe isn't similar?

would this fall under 'or equivalent'?

I know a few people without degree in degree positions due to this. usually they have worked in similar positions before or worked themselves up the structure of a company.

Nope... there is no option for “or equivalent” because of doping scandals, etc. It’s specific for a reason

You said it was Australian Government - a sports coaching position? Trying to see what this would be. Unless its a teaching role. You always have the right for feedback and appeal it but in Western Australia at least that can only be an appeal on process not merit. I work in this field - I would need more information to comment more fully.

Does your husband have a trusted colleague who didn’t apply that he could ask to help? I’ve raised an concern to the ethics officer for a work friend in a similar situation, and it was much simpler because I wasn’t involved. I had direct first hand evidence of the concern. (Turned out whole process was very questionable and ended up with the position being cancelled so wasn’t the ideal outcome but she had nothing to lose at that stage.)

What do you hope to achieve? The fact is they wanted this man rather than your husband- for whatever reason, and whilst it is unfair and brutal I would let it go and look for a job elsewhere

Usually government jobs have to have an open, transparent and fair recruitment process. It’s worth speaking up because if this is eroded, next time it’s the best qualified woman being turned down because she might get pregnant.

Let this alone. I don’t know about Australian law, but in the UK the vacancy holder can appoint using whatever criteria they wish (as long as the appointment is in accordance with the EQA10).

In the UK applicants have no recourse outside of the EQA10.

It’s likely that your DH didn’t get the job because the vacancy holder saw something different they wanted. If that person has misrepresented themselves in some way then it will come out, the person will be let go and the vacancy re-advertised. At that point your DH can reapply but if he’s been bleating about it to all and sundry and it gets back to the vacancy holder I wouldn’t like his chances of success.

The same transparency laws apply here too. It’s all a bit weird.

Just want to add that my DH isn’t bitter about losing out on the job. Just bewildered about what happened to the process, etc... Also a bit peeved that other qualified people missed out on being interviewed for the position when this guy probably shouldn’t have applied in the first place.

Maybe he should wait and see what this person is like before fully judging.

Of course the successful candidate should have applied - anyone has the right to apply for a job and be considered.

He has a his review on Tuesday, so hopefully all of this will be out in the open by then.

If he is 100% confident of his facts, I don't think there is anything wrong with mentioning in his review he is looking for honest feedback, and dropping into the conversation he knows it wasn't because of qualifications as the successful candidate doesn't have x and isn't a member of y so must have been something else such as experience or another skillset and what can he do to improve himself for future applications.

It may be a managed move.

How did he go with HR.

Seems he has dodged a bullet. He is VERY happy he didn’t get this gig. She has a Scorched Earth agenda. He has heard that she left the last two places she worked at in utter chaos, and the state body that governs the accreditation is already aware of this appointment. If this man sets foot in his working arena without the appropriate accreditation they will jump on him AND her from a great height. This will also be reported to the National Ethics Committee. His review with HR was very positive. He has already been offered another role elsewhere with people he knows and trusts - and better long-term security and prospects. Win-Win! So pleased he didn’t get it, now!!!

Who is "she" in your previous post?

Oh the new in-coming boss... Sorry.