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.

Does your workplace offer any funding for training to let you get A, B or C?

I won't guess, but I would think it could potentially be exactly the same scenario. It's awful. I have also known of an appointment to a vacancy that was advertised only for a couple of hours in the middle of the night and closed with only one applicant. It's the pits.

Is there anything stopping you from achieving qualifications A, B or C?

They have offered funding for qualifications in the past although I don’t believe it’s currently available. It’s not something I could afford to fund myself

Often the A,B, C and D qualifications come before a higher level qualification, so it wouldn't really make sense to go back and do them as they are more basic.

What is the difference between A, B, C and D?

A is the old degree
B is the newer version of the same degree
C is a specific work based qualification
D is a level 5 qualification in the wider field.

The actual job we do does not need the qualification in the way of say, a doctor. I’m not trying to be a maxillofacial surgeon while only being qualified as a dental nurse.

Is qualification D at the same level, depth and specialism as A,B and C. Could it be that people who hold AB or C genuinely do have more skills/knowledge in the area as the qualification covers more depth or breadth. Is D really equivalent to them?

Is it like teachers coming to Scotland pissed off they can't teach here without the PGDE , it's not the same as the PGCE. Although the same level the PGDE covers far more and is 120 credits Vs the English PGCE being only 60 credits.

Is it PRINCE2 and Agile they're looking for and you have some other kind of generic project management qualification?

I'd say you have already been treated very favourably since qualifications A B and C are essential for your present job. But you dont have any of them. You need to work towards getting those qualifications if you want promotion.

These situations tend to be in the eye of the beholder though. If you like and trust people you are more likely to want to work with them and find them easier to work with than the (admittedly qualified) unknown. The key is to build those connections so you're the one benefitting from it rather than the collateral damage.

I understand what you’re saying @TartanMammy and I’m not trying to be infuriating by not giving more detail. A/B and C aren’t equivalent to each other anyway so it’s not a level playing field to start with. And none of the qualifications are needed as such to do the job, as in my example above.

So D has been added as acceptable for your current grade but for the next grade up, only A, B or C are accepted? There doesn't seem to be anything unfair in that.

I’d say you’re on shaky ground given you’re in a role that now has pre requisites that you don’t have

If it is a way of excluding people then it could be if it could be demonstrated to be more likely to rule out someone with a protected characteristic. Not enough detail to determine whether this is the case.

No, it’s not unfair.

Frustrating and disappointing for you - yes. But not unfair in an employment law sense.

Employers can set job selection criteria to be pretty much anything they like as long as doesn’t discriminate based on a protected characteristic.

If someone wants to say a Lifeguard role needs fluent Japanese (despite having no relevance to the role). They can do that.

They can’t insist on Japanese O Level becayse that excludes younger potential candidates based on age.

In your case, they can insist on qualifications as long as they’re ones anyone could get with enough time and effort and funding and aptitude.

It does however give you a really solid foundation for a development conversation around plan for future progression and training needs to get there.

Thank you, this is helpful :)

Op means you must have one of A B or C not all of the

I too was wondering why people were saying the person needed A, B AND C before D was added!

Essential criteria used to be one of the following A, B or C.

Now it can be A, B, C or D.

I am wondering if it is the CIPD as I have found myself in a similar situation...

Can some people maybe go back and read the first couple of sentences of the OP.? The level of basic reading comprehension is abysmal on this site sometimes.
It is clear that originally the role OP does needed one of A B or C. At some point D was added so OP applied at that point having the D that was needed and got the job. The D was not as well as one of the others it was an alternative so the role needed one of ABC or D as an essential at the time OP successfully applied.
The next grade up does not include D as an option only A B or C. If OP wishes to progress then she will need to get one of the A B or C qualifications to do so.

Maybe read the OP again.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Read the 2nd paragraph of the OP.

Can you train to get a b or c