Is this ‘unfair’ as per the proper definition

[Kerzehmet]

My specialist role, within public sector. Has always required qualifications A, B or C as standard essential criteria. I do not have A B or C.

However, a few years ago, qualification D was added. I have D. I applied and was successful and was among the first group of people to join following this new qualification being added.

I am now about to apply for the next grade up. This role still only has A B or C as its essential criteria. D has not been added and I have been told that my D qualification is insufficient and I cannot apply.

While I feel this is completely unfair on a personal level (!), I would like to know if this would be considered ‘unfair’ in an employment context. It puts me, and any other people at the same grade who joined with me or after me, at a disadvantage.

I think I have explained this properly and with enough information - I would be interested in HR people’s thoughts on this. Thank you.

My specialist role, within public sector. Has always required qualifications A, B or C as standard essential criteria. I do not have A B or C.

How can it be essential then?

No, it wouldn't be unfair. There are a whole ton of justifications (potentially) should the employer wish to justify themselves.

I would count yourself lucky that they relaxed the criteria / added the additional qualification for your current role. Presumably, getting qualification A B or C would require a lot of effort that you either don't want to got to, or have already gone to getting qualification D?

Difficult to know without the details, but is qualification D something that people of a specific age are more likely to have than qualifications A, B and C?

I can’t remember the specifics now, but I think there was a case ages ago that found it was unfair to require GCSEs without stating “or equivalent” as it discriminated against people with older qualifications.

The only time “unfair” has a meaning in employment is unfair dismissal.

they can have whatever requirement they choose. It might be indirect discrimination if you can demonstrate it’s not required and it disproportionately disadvantages a protected characteristic

Surely any unfairness will depend on whether any duties required at the higher grade can only be discharged if those appointed have qualifications A, B or C.

Maybe only having D means you couldn't fulfil the whole role?

An example might be that A, B and C cover a lot of history, background, context, adjacent areas of theory etc, while D covered practical on-the-job skills and no theory and it's believed that you need all the other stuff for the senior roles.

* I do not have A B or C.*

well A B or C is not essential to your role then is it?

No it's not unfair because D is not deemed essential for the role but A B and C are.

I would imagine the role has been created for someone and they don't have D so don't want it on the list.

I would spend more time getting to know the people who have created this role so they can create one for you, rather than getting hung up on a job description.

While not technically "unfair" I think a good employer would support you in progressing, perhaps by taking account of your experience in the role or paying for you to obtain the relevant qualification.

Thanks for all your quick replies. There is nothing that would indicate this is discrimination based on any protected characteristics. But I appreciate the honesty and helpful responses. Thanks

Can you clarify how A B or C is essential to your role
but you don’t have any of them?

And it’s not just for this role. It’s for this grade up. So all roles at this grade are unavailable to me. I can progress no further than where I currently am

Well you’re lucky to even have that - given you don’t have A B or C despite one being essential

Sorry to be clear. A B and C have historically been essential criteria. Then they added D. So now the essential criteria are A B C or D. I only have D

There must be a reason. Even if it's historical.

It's perfectly acceptable for a qualification to enable someone to do a certain role, but not the role above it.

They will state certain attributes of people with A, B and C as being required and that having D simply doesn't prove you have those capabilities.

It does seem unfair in a personal context. But they'll be able to justify it so I don't think you'd be able to go to tribunal or whatever over it.

Have you spoken to your union?

And you got the job at the time that A B or C was a pre req? Or you got the job BEFORE A B or C was a pre req?

I think it depends on role and specifics. If it’s a just not updated job spec for role above worth querying.
If for example it’s something like for your role solicitor barrister or D legal exec is essential but position above has an element of supervising then there’s a good reason not to include D as legal executive wouldn’t be able to fulfil supervisory part of role.

sadly Billie I am not a member of a union. Entirely my fault and an excellent lesson for me

I would think that this is only an issue if it’s impossible to get A B or C now (ie it was some kind of qualification no longer offered after the pandemic or something). Obviously, they decided that having D meant A B or C was no longer essential to your role. However, there is every reason why someone a grade higher might still require A B or C, or a reason why D is not enough. I know you don’t want to out yourself; just know it’s a bit difficult to offer really helpful advice without knowing why A, B, C, or D are, so take all opinions with a grain of salt.

Yes, I appreciate it’s difficult without more context, which I’m not really able to give without being identifying. This has been helpful though because while a few people are acknowledging it’s a bit shit on a personal level (which is nice to hear as I’m pretty gutted), the general consensus is that there’s not much I can do and that my employer isn’t doing anything wrong.

Without knowing what they are it's hard to say but if A,B,C are higher level qualifications than D then it makes sense, less so if they're the same. Ie. If A,BC are degree courses but they decided A-levels were sufficient for your grade, it would still make sense if at the next grade up it was only degrees. But if ABC are three different degrees and D is a shorter but masters level course after an alternative subject then it would seem unfair. Another example is if they are specific skills, like I used to a role that required an NVQ level 2 which I didn't have, but I had a degree which they accepted. When I tried to apply for a promotion they said my degree isn't enough and I'd have to do the NVQ level 3 first as they needed to know I had the practical skills for the higher role.

Are you able to say more about the type of course?

@Hellometimei genuinely thought it was an issue of a not updated job spec so I queried it, and this is where I am now at.

I work in the public sector and have seen exactly this method used to exclude certain individuals from promotion for no good reason and at different times to facilitate someone's promotion, again without any particular merit. There was never any legitimate reason for changing the criteria. No rationale at all.

It's morally completely unfair. In the organisation I work in it's about nepotism and a senior manager makes these changes so that everyone who is promoted is within their own (incompetent) entourage. All the promoted people socialise outside of work and go on holiday together. I don't think it breaches the equality act - I guess it would if it always meant that all women or all black or gay people etc were prevented from progressing.

If you're in a union it would be worth seeking advice. They may suggest a grievance, but my experience is that organisations that turn a blind eye to (or encourage) these kind of practices are unlikely to investigate properly or take any action. It's absolutely shit. If you still have a long time to work, you have to decide whether to move on to a less corrupt organisation, or whether to distance yourself and work in a quiet corner, if your role allows that.

I think a lot of it is this. I know recently of a situation where a job description was altered the day it was advertised, because the essential criteria excluded one (and genuinely only one) person from applying. The essential criteria now reflects a specific qualification only they have and allows them to apply.

So to be prevented from applying for all grades above my current one, when I know they will and have made changes for others, feels really shit.

I won’t be staying in this organisation forever as this has really made me disenchanted with the whole thing.

I can’t be any more specific but I am grateful for all your replies and regrettably I can see that you are all correct.

If a particular qualification is required for a job and you don't have that, I can't see how that discriminates against you. I might like to be a doctor but if I don't have the relevant qualification I cannot really claim discrimination!

Surely if it has always been the case, it isn't in one person's favour?