Bloody MET police and?unfair practices.

[ILovemashedpotato]

After what has been a shitty 3 years of employment by the MET police the what feels like another blow to my partner.
Specialist role as come up 3 candidate's come through shortlisting for interview.
A has dyslexia well.know and formally diagnosed
B not diagnosed.
C No issues
Interview pack come out advising that this is a real time briefing, you will be presented with the information you will have a period of time and then you have to present back the relevant info.
No mention in the interview pack of needing to let the interviewers know about adjustments.
A belived this was due to a real time briefing scenario were you would not get extra time in the real event. (Yes they are stupid). Went in and due to dyslexia was unable to finish reading the info but did the best they could feedback was they did well.
B went in on the day and stated to the panel in the interview they were dyslexic. Panel gave them double time to review the evidence. Not evidence of dyexia requested.
C the interview team then rung to ask about accommodations prior to there interview (which was the next day.) They then pulled out.

B has now been given the job, A is devastated as its a role they are already doing and have been on a temp basis for 3 years.
Can they do this? Fairness issues were raised by one of the interviewers but not by my partner, would this make a difference? Should the process not be null and void?
I am so upset and devastated for my partner especially as this now means they now have to leave the area they are in complete due to how the jobs work. It just seems like another kick in the teeth from an organisation they have worked for for over 20 years.

That's a bit confusing.
Do I have this right?
It appears person A didn't mention they had dyslexia, so did not get extra time, which impacted how they did?
If so, then the employer was not being unfair, they did not deny the opportunity for more time, because they weren't actually asked for it.
Or maybe I have the wrong end of the stick?

..

A didnt ask for time as nothing was in the pack about adjustments. They believed they would be assessed as if it was a real scenario where they wouldnt have extra time so it did impact how they did but was told they had done well. B did better but had double the time. But only told the interview panel on the day when they walked in.
The panel realised they had a fairness issue as one member knew A was dyslexic, so the team then called C to ask about reasonable adjustments not such accommodations were made to A.ì

Not harsh, thats partially why A didn't request as I said they should. There response was in the situation we don't get extra time which is why they havent put about adjustments. I should have been more clear they did review all the evidence but more time would have been of a huge benefit. They have also been doing the job 3 years with continual positive feedback. Was also told they had done well but B was a bit better on the day!

It’s a kick in the teeth and a lesson learnt for the future but not much you can do about it now. It is really frustrating when your partner’s career takes a setback but the best you can do now is try to help them move forward and don’t encourage them to go round and round getting frustrated with what didn’t happen.

I would say it’s a lesson learned for future - reasonable adjustments aren’t automatic and the interviewers need to be told if reasonable adjustments are required. Even if they know someone has a condition that doesn’t automatically mean reasonable adjustments are required - the condition may not be a disability for that individual, or may not impact them in that particular task.

If someone needs adjustments but don’t think they’d be allowed (like his extra time assumption) they should still ask. They may be wrong to assume, or correct that the adjustment can’t be made but perhaps a different one could be.

Partner may also not know the full story - presumably this info is all coming from the successful candidate? Are they prone to lying or exaggerating? There may be other disabilities at play that they don’t want to disclose.

The part about C pulling out when asked about adjustments seems random.

Thank you. I think whats frustrating is they phoned C to ask whether there were reasonable adjustments after A and B had been interviewed so they were querying whether they had been open enough about it. C withdrawing was nothing to do with that call they said they had none and then withdrew for other reasons. I know my partner is kicking themselves for feeling it wasn't right to ask because you don't get extra time in the real events.
They are amazing at there job, kind supportive and have a team that are upset to lose them.
As family we are very proud of them and this is just the final thing after years of poor treatment and support from the job.

I can’t see how they would be expected to make adjustments unless the person has declared they need them.

If they have been doing the job on a temporary basis for 3 years surely there must be some protection?