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.)

OK - makes sense now.

Sounds like he is well out of it!

I can't imagine what would make someone want to sabotage someone's early days in their new role, by going all-out to prove they don't have qualifications. That's pretty mean-spirited.

If your DH feels he should have got the job, then he needs to ask himself what it was that would make the recruiters decide not to hire him.

I'm sure they wouldn't have gone "well we've got this completely unqualified unsuitable candidate here, and we've got JustilouDH with his wealth of qualifications and experience here. I know, let's hire the unqualified unsuitable candidate". That does not make sense.

There will be a reason - albeit your DH may not be party to - as to why he wasn't hired.

It would be better to focus on getting feedback on what he can do to improve his own interview performance next time. Chipping away at someone else's success will diminish him as a person.

Anonymous report to HR.

Is it a safety critical role?

You're latest update sounds "sour grapes".

You sound way too overinvested in your husband's career.

@daisychain01

I can't imagine what would make someone want to sabotage someone's early days in their new role, by going all-out to prove they don't have qualifications. That's pretty mean-spirited.

If your DH feels he should have got the job, then he needs to ask himself what it was that would make the recruiters decide not to hire him.

I'm sure they wouldn't have gone "well we've got this completely unqualified unsuitable candidate here, and we've got JustilouDH with his wealth of qualifications and experience here. I know, let's hire the unqualified unsuitable candidate". That does not make sense.

There will be a reason - albeit your DH may not be party to - as to why he wasn't hired.

It would be better to focus on getting feedback on what he can do to improve his own interview performance next time. Chipping away at someone else's success will diminish him as a person.

Would you say the same if the person was someone pretending to be qualified as a doctor,nurse,social worker,teacher, lawyer etc?

A rather irrelevant question @AccidentallyOnPurpose - since when would a recruitment process involve hiring someone in the medical or legal without qualifications. How inept would that be!

I'm questioning that the DHs employer's Recruitment process is so faulty that they would hire someone who lacks the ability to do the job. Why would they do that? How does the DH know such in depth information about this person's past employment history exam passes etc.

Just so you know, my DH is happy that he didn’t get this position under these conditions. Not thrilled that the whole formal appointment process has beenmade a mockery of,,,, HE is not the person putting in the complaint to the ethics committee. The body in charge of this guy’s professional accreditation are doing that. Also, HR is not thrilled with the way this went down either. (This was made very clear in his review yesterday.)

@Justilou1

Just so you know, my DH is happy that he didn’t get this position under these conditions. Not thrilled that the whole formal appointment process has beenmade a mockery of,,,, HE is not the person putting in the complaint to the ethics committee. The body in charge of this guy’s professional accreditation are doing that. Also, HR is not thrilled with the way this went down either. (This was made very clear in his review yesterday.)

Are you saying HR had no part in a Government recruitment process? That makes no sense

I don't want to say anymore as it's probably very outing but the whole area is now under review. The HR department was overruled. It's a nepotism debacle as transparent as the Emperor's New Clothes. It's so funny watching the very newly-built house of cards fall down almost immediately.