HR question - essential criteria

[EnidSpyton]

For those with HR expertise - what are the legalities around job descriptions, essential criteria and hiring?

My line manager and I (I am older and more experienced, just joined the company later so in a less senior position) are both in the running for a promotion.

There is a very specific qualification requirement in the essential criteria for the promoted job, as well as a requirement for very specific professional experience.

I have both the qualification and the experience. My line manager has neither, despite both of the criteria for the promoted post also being essential criteria in the job descriptions of both of our current jobs.

I have heard on the grapevine that my line manager was originally hired without the essential criteria on the proviso that he gained the required qualification while on the job. He has not done this, has no plans to do this, and apparently it's all been brushed under the carpet. The fact that he doesn't have this qualification is widely known in the department and there have been a lot of grumblings about it, as other existing members of staff wanted to go for his post when it came up but were not even allowed to apply because they didn't have the qualification my line manager also doesn't have. From what I understand - and this obviously is gossip rather than fact - our department head wanted him over other more qualified candidates as he has a particular identity that increases the diversity in the department. Whether that's true or not, what I do know is that my department head overrode HR, insisted on him being offered the job and said they would ensure he got the qualification retrospectively - which obviously hasn't happened.

Because of this history, I have real concerns about the transparency and fairness of the recruitment process when essential criteria can be thrown out of the equation in favour of personal feelings towards candidates. I know I am the best person for the job and I know my team would support me getting it, and I have a good relationship with my department manager, but I am not happy about having to go up against my line manager for a job for which he doesn't meet the criteria and therefore shouldn't be allowed to even apply.

I am also not happy that someone without the essential experience and theoretical knowledge to manage the department might be given this job. At the moment I am already having to do a lot of the work my line manager should be doing because he doesn't have the knowledge and experience he should have to do it. This is only going to get worse if he goes higher up the food chain in the department. I can see increasing amounts of work being dumped on me without the pay or position to reward me for it!

Sorry this is a bit of a ramble. I'm not massively happy in this job and the only thing keeping me in it is the hope of this promotion - and I am very concerned that it's not going to be a fair process.

So in short - is there anything legally in place to make it a problem if someone is hired without meeting essential criteria? Have I got a leg to stand on if I go to HR with the concern about my line manager being shortlisted for a role I know he doesn't have the essential criteria for? Or is this going to just make me look like a meddling troublemaker?

All they have to be able to show is that a fair process was followed.

When it comes to applications it's often done on a scoring system so for example every Essential criteria you have gives 2 points, every desirable criteria gives 1 point.

Each application is scored. Someone might get more points even if they don't have all the essential criteria because they have more of the desirable ones.

A qualification doesn't mean someone will be good at the job, it just means they had the opportunity to do the qualification and are good enough at study to pass it. Someone could be more suitable for a role because they have better leadership skills, better ability to build relationships, an ability to strategise.........

@FatAgainItsLettuceTime thanks, that's really helpful. The fair process element is what I'm wondering about. Saying that some people can't apply for a job due to not having essential criteria but then employing someone who doesn't have that very same essential criteria anyway doesn't strike me as being particularly fair.

And I completely agree re: the qualification. However in this specific circumstance (don't want to say more as it's quite a specific job and so a bit outing) - the qualification is a practical one that really is essential to the job. The only way to gain the knowledge is through doing the qualification. I am still very surprised that my line manager was hired without it as it really does hinder his ability to do the job properly.

There is no legal requirement to have ANY recruitment process. They can legally just pick someone if that's what they want to do. So the extent to which any employer is serious about their practice is dependent on them and not the law. Many employers are hot on process, at least on the face of it, to demonstrate that they don't discriminate unlawfully. So if you complained about this, how they would take it would depend on their approach. They may do something. They may not. And it may rebound on you or not. Nobody could tell you.

What I will say is that I have worked for a number of large employers who are very, very not on fair play and fair processes being adhered to. Every single one of them has been more than capable of ticking all the boxes, but getting g the result they want. So if your employer really wants your manager in that role, they'll get what they want.

It makes my blood boil that POC always have the question hanging over them about whether they got the job because of the colour of their skin, rather than it just about them being the best candidate for the role regardless of qualification.

As another poster has said, it goes off a pointing system. If he scores higher than you everywhere else, he'll get the job.

At my workplace, it is a case of essential qualification or equivalent demonstrable experience is accepted.

As a qualified accountant, who studied for several years, I hate the notion that people can become "qualified by experience" so feel for you, OP.

I would not want to be line managed by someone supposedly in my field but with fewer qualifications.

Can you be absolutely sure they don't meet the essential criteria? And if they don't I would argue that it's your colleagues also without the essential criteria that didn't apply because they thought they couldn't that were disadvantaged. Any complaint is best coming from them.

Thanks very much for the advice, everyone. I had no idea there wasn't a legal requirement for a recruitment process, so that's really good to know. Marching into HR is looking like a much less viable option now but at least I understand that and appreciate why.

@TokenGinger the person in question is not a person of colour actually. I agree with you that diversity initiatives do place this question over people's heads and I am not comfortable with it either. I would never ordinarily question a person's suitability for a role if I knew they met a diversity criteria - I am not a bigot! - however in this case the qualification required is really essential to the ability to do the job. This is why I am so mystified as to why they were employed in the first place, diversity issues aside - it's genuinely a hindrance to him as he has no theoretical knowledge to draw on and has to ask me for everything!

@Jewel1968 yes I am absolutely certain they have neither the qualification nor experience. I know their background and while it has some relevance to what we do, it is in a different area of specialism that has no bearing on our day to day work.

You make a good point - I do think there was a complaint made at the time but it didn't go anywhere. The employee who complained has since left.

I recall some years ago one of the senior directors bullied our head of service out of her job - technically she took early retirement but only because she couldn't face work any longer. The next week, it was announced in a meeting that the post would be advertised internally, and I said "So when will *** be taking up the post then?" I got a ticking off for being sarky (which didn't bother me in the slightest, I call it like it is and always have). Four weeks later that person I named got the job. Shock .... And we have fair recruitment policies that number in volumes. Five years later, having achieved nothing whatsoever, that person is "shifted" to a non-job and in comes the next "favoured son" (and they are all men). It's two years on and he still has to do anything to earn the very huge salary he has.

It doesn't matter what policies employers have or don't have. If they wish to fix the outcome, they will. And do.

I feel for you. I experienced a similar situation recently and discovered that provided the person they want to employ can rack up more points in a scoring system then there's nothing you can do about it.

On the one hand, I can see why it would be beneficial not to solely rely on qualifications as this may unfairly disadvantage some applicants, but it also feels very unfair when you have the required qualifications but are aware you probably have no chance of the job!

I've become quite negative regarding recruitment processes in general now.
In my case, the essential criteria was changed for the first time to include "or working towards" a specific qualification. Miraculously this particular applicant was heavily encouraged, and given supported time off (which is unheard of), to begin this qualification a few months before the post was advertised. They were heavily coached and I know from someone on the interview panel who has since left that they believed that the scoring system used by two people on the panel (the people eventually making the decision) was unfair and didn't reflect how they had scored the applicant themselves.

Since their appointment in this role, the qualification which should have taken 4 years anyway was reduced to part time study so will now take at least 8 and is looking less and less likely to ever be completed. But as previous posters have said, there's nothing that can be done as on paper it was a fair scoring system.

I also had an interview with another company where it was clear that the service manager probably had a candidate in mind and was determined I would not get the job. She gave terrible feedback on many levels but also shared the scoring system across three different levels of the interview. She was very clear, because she was reading the scores, that every other member of the panel and staff group had scored me really highly on various things and her own scores were at total odds with this. She gave reasons that were pretty cutting to be honest and basically amounted to the fact that she didn't like me during the interview. To be honest, I ended up being glad she didn't give me the job so I didn't have to work with her!

The thing is, the people doing the promoting will know who they want for the job, and if need be will massage or even overhaul the criteria so the person they've earmarked for the position gets it. They'll move the goalposts so that something previously deemed essential becomes no more than desirable. The same goes for redundancy.

I think it's all down to scoring, but I'm not sure if the slate is wiped clean at interview. Even if it is surely a few competency questions are asked? But if management like him they can prod and prompt answers plus score highly so very difficult to complain. Only way is if the job has a legal requirement to hold a certain qualification and even then there are ways like retitling jobs.

The company can set whatever recruitment process, job description and selection criteria they want. The only time it would be relevant Is if an unsuccessful candidate wanted to claim unlawful discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic- in those circumstances the fact that they met the published criteria better than the successful candidate might be grounds for a claim.

On balance you should probably look to move on, because you clearly aren't happy and soon your boss with less qualifications than you is going to be two levels above you rather than the current one level. Somebody, somewhere will recognise your qualifications and experience, and be willing to pay for them.

Unless it is a regulatory requirement to have the qualification as pp have said an employer can use what ever process they chose provided it cannot be proved to be discriminatory. For example some tests may disadvantage candidates with disabilities.

Going up against your line manager is a none issue, it’s a vacancy and you are both entitled to apply for the role. It’s not your job to decide who can and can’t apply nor the criteria.

In the right circumstances, you may be able to gain an advantage. You state “At the moment I am already having to do a lot of the work my line manager should be doing because he doesn't have the knowledge and experience he should have to do it.” It may be possible to insert into one response to an interview question the fact that x task is delegated to you because you have the required qualification. Do not in any way be negative about your manager not having the qualification or name your manager. If appropriate you could add that being qualified means you can do x parts of the role you are applying for. You need to be subtle and respectful of your manager.

What I think is interesting about your post is that you say that you are older. Like that gives you some kind of superiority over your line manager. I would understand if you had linked it just to experience and qualifications, but you referencing age is a moot point. I think you should think carefully about that as you navigate these steps. I think it's likely your line manager will get promoted. So I would probably start looking for a new job.

Surely if they have made up their mind they want him in the role, they could have easily updated the job advert to say qualification X OR equivalent experience. That would avoided any questions.

If they didn't, maybe it is because they are actually more opened minded as to who to give the job to than you think?

Depends what the essential criteria is surely, if the criteria was a clear DBS check for a role in a school then yes obviously. If it’s just a relevant qualification then I can see why it would be overlooked for the right candidate.

You sound very bitter, and taking part in workplace gossip about this person being a “diversity hire” could land you in some hot water.

Maybe focus more on yourself, jealousy does nothing but breed unhappiness

On another point, age discrimination works both ways - suggesting you are more suited for the job due to being older is age discrimination too.

Being recruited to a position of leadership where you do not have the support of the senior team because they wanted someone else and you have shoehorned your way in on a legal technicality is not a wise strategy - if you want a promotion, find a company who actually want you for your experience and qualifications not one that's forced to promote you because you have argued your way into your job - you'll be more successful and happier.

As a qualified accountant who also studied for several years and has been in the job now for several decades I’ve come across co-workers who were amazing at the job but just couldn’t pass the exams, also people who passed their exams but couldn’t apply anything practically and were useless at the job. In accountancy I don’t think it does follow that having the qualification makes you better qualified for a role.

Apparently, it's very much a female thing to not apply for a job because they don't match the criteria.
Men are much more likely to "give it a go". It's one of the many reasons why there are more men than women at the top levels of business.

HR here.
Your only route would be to raise a grievance for discrimination on the grounds of sex. If you went to tribunal they would then look at both candidates but you'd need to be able to prove than the reason you didn't get the job was due to sex but that would be very difficult. You could also go in with the equal pay angle.

Taking your employer to tribunal might get you compensation but it's unlikely to get you the promotion as your relationship with your employer would be damaged significantly.

If there is a recruitment process in place, they should be following that. In my workplace if a qualification is deemed essential, then we would not progress any applicant who did not have it. Simple. If the essential requirement is described as x qualification or equivalent (eg experience), then we would consider the detail on their CV/application to determine if the person met the requirements for the role.

Just go for the job and do a bloody good interview.

He's in the line manager position for a reason, appearing to snipe at him at this stage is unlikely to reflect positively on you. Your skills and experience need to be what gets you this, nothing else.

All the best with it.