Dodgy?

[workcorruption]

I've name changed for this and may change slight details as I don't know what to do. It's come to my attention that an internal post I went for and didn't get was given to someone who had been shown the interview questions beforehand and told what to answer.
This was reported but the person is still in post with seemingly nothing done about it.
Is this....ok? Legally or generally?

Well of course there are no laws around whether interview questions can be shown to candidates in advance or not. Ideally, an organisation would conduct a fair process in determining the best candidate but so long as they do not discriminate in terms of protected characteristics, or unseat the incumbent unfairly, they can give the role to whomever they want.

If they were given the questions someone obviously believed they were the best person for the role before the interviews. It's crap and it's immoral though.

It's really not great is it.

You see I would think that giving the the questions and ideal answers would show that they may not be the best person as wouldn't be able to answer them without help?

I think it depends on the reason why - I've known one occasion where a candidate was shown the interview questions in advance as a reasonable adjustment for a specific condition. It was recommended by Access to Work as a reasonable adjustment.

Its not something that should normally happen though obviously.

Some people aren't good at interviews.
They probably wanted to guarantee they'd be the best person on paper.

Doesnt sound good BUT how reliable is the information? How did you find out? What does the person who told you have to win or lose from this?

Another candidate saw the question paper (with answers written down underneath) in the successful person's bag. I have spoken to them about it and they said that it was reported and admitted to. Obviously they are also a little cross!

Some people may provide indications around questions but on all day interviews there is a lot more depth and knowledge required that will clearly show the interviewers whether the interviewer has the knowledge

It was a half an hour interview with six questions

And strictly points based

I've known candidates to request a paper copy of the questions at the beginning of the interview to refer back to, but again that was a reasonable adjustment for a particular need. But in providing the questions in advance to one candidate, they can't evidence that the process was fair or equal.

Did the person who saw it make a written complaint? It's important to document those issues so they can't be brushed off.

They did. It appears that nothing has been done however. The person who got the post is still in it and the matter seems to be closed.
I think I need to say something but I'm not sure what as it's clearly been 'dealt with'
I'm amazed that it can happen- maybe I'm just naive

What are you expecting them to do? Report the successful candidate from their post?

Whoever gave the questions might have been given a warning if it's against company policy, I guess, but aside from that what do you want to happen?

Remove not report

Just seems shocking to me that everyone involved is still in post to be honest
Perhaps it's not as bad as I thought it was and happens a lot.

It could be discrimination if you are in a protected group.

Does Race come under a protected group?

Of course race is a protected characteristic. Do you think you’ve been discriminated against? www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Is the person who got the job in a protected group?

No

It's possible certainly

I'm probably sounding a bit thick here but let me get this right:
Giving interview questions and ideal answers to one candidate in an internal interview situation - the candidate that got it - is ok;
That candidate had no exceptional circumstances that could have merited this;
They, and the senior person who did this are free to get away with it and keep their jobs;
BUT
If one of the candidates falls under protected characteristic rules, it could then be considered discriminatory;
Otherwise, we all shrug our shoulders and say 'oh well'

Is this about right?

Where have they discriminated against your race?

I didn't say they had - it was mentioned above