Promotion with No Interview

Status
Not open for further replies.

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
Hi forum members,

I feel a little cheeky that my first post is a query, rather than helping someone, but I'm really not qualified or confident to start offering other members advice (at least not right now) - I hope you don't hold it against me!

Coming to the point, my manager resigned 3 months ago (with a 3 month notice period). Initially they said they would go out to recruit for the post, but instead prevaricated for 3 months about whether they needed to or not. With a week left before my manager leaves they promoted the person I job share with to take the post. However, she only works 3 days a week when the manager role is full time, and they are not replacing her current role on the project, even though the need for the resource is still there.

The main point of contention is that they have clearly violated their own recruitment policy, which states all posts will go out to external recruitment unless it is less than 3 months (the job is for 5 months); there is risk of redundancy (their isn't); there is enough talent for an internal recruitment process (there was no process); or interviews had been held for the post in the last 3 months and they appoint one of those candidates (there were no interviews). They also have no policy on promotions, so this is the only policy they have which applies here.

In addition the role has materially changed in terms of responsibility, so it is actually a new post, which definitely means they should have gone out to recruit according to their policy.

There are other issues, but that is the core of it. I have given them time to justify their reasoning in the context of their policy, but if they stick to their guns, what should my course of action be? I understand I could bring some sort of discriminatory case against them, i.e. I and other interested candidates were excluded from consideration for the post without any justification, and excluded from even being able to express an interest. This interest was legitimately held given that it was announced at an all staff meeting (minuted), that they would be going out to recruit for the post.

Grateful for any advice or opinions.

Thanks!

N
 
You will not like my opinion, but it is 'thank god I am not your employer'. :(

Have a look at yourself, ask yourself WHY the other person got the job and not you.

Ask yourself what it is that they liked about the other person that you don't have.

How big is the company? you say it is a 5 month post it will take you longer than that to get to tribunal, and I am not even sure if there is a case for tribunal anyhow.

As I said, thank god you are not my employee, because if an employee threatened legal action against me, my reply would be 'get out and sue me then'. your feet wouldn't touch the ground.

I am all for employees rights, but it is the right of the employer to promote whomsoever they decide.

Something tells me this is a quasi government or third sector employment (although I would be happy to be told otherwise) :)
 
Upvote 0
I have to entirely agree with OWG on this thread.


They’ve “violated” their own processes, so raise a grievance if you feel so strongly about it (as you clearly do). But remember, it’s their processes, and they’re free to deviate from them if they feel it appropriate to do so. And they can also bring disciplinary proceedings for abuse of the grievance procedure.


A “discrimination” claim is just ridiculous, and a typical abuse of the phrase. Yes, it may well be treating some categories of people less favourable than others, but the law doesn’t offer you any protection against this unless the reason is for a “protected characteristic”: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4.


If a colleague has a nicer smile, or a nicer demeanour, or engages better with the staff, they could be promoted ahead of you – regardless of any policies – and nicer smiles, nicer demeanours, engaging better with staff are all reasons an employer could vary (or “violate”) its own processes to get the right person into the job. As none of these fall within a protected characteristic though, it’s discrimination in name only, and not in law.

Grateful for any advice or opinions.

Get over it! And improve your smile: :(. doesn't endear you too well.


Karl Limpert
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWelshGuy
Upvote 0

The Byre

Legacy Full Member
Aug 13, 2013
11,835
5,127
I sit on a committee that is about to promote a 25-year-old girl to a very choice position. There were six candidates, of which several felt 'entitled' to the gig, as they were internal and had been working towards this for many years.

The facts are that we can promote whomsoever we wish and the young girl is head-and-shoulders the best candidate. There will be hissy-fits and we have been lobbied by goofy people (husbands and wives, friends and other animals) who want their horse to win the race, despite the fact that four of the six are totally useless.

Tuff!

I once promoted my Great Dane to clerk-of-works for a building project. He was paid in bones and seemed perfectly happy with this arrangement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWelshGuy
Upvote 0

paulears

Free Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,011
1,378
Suffolk - UK
When you are a grumpy employee, you are entitled to complain, and moan and groan as much as you like. As an employer, they probably notice this anyway, so it's hardly a surprise. They might be a reader here and recognise their own company. Even when I was an employee, I got this! My boss called me in one day and told me that the person I worked with, doing the same job got paid more than me. He was an old friend, and this was how it was, and he was sorry he couldn't afford to pay us the same, but if I got a rise, his friend would expect one two, and it would just be unpleasant. He told me I'd always be treated fairly, but the pay things was just something that had happened in the past. He was the boss, and I the employee. Within a year or two, I'd been promoted over his friend because of what I was doing, for less money. I had my own branch shortly after, before moving into self-employment and employing others. His friend worked in the same job until his retirement.

Your boss is the boss. The idea of taking them to a tribunal is pointless and stupid. Do you want a list of your shortcomings becoming part of the records?

You won't like it, but you have virtually no rights against being a grumpy hard done by employee who is considering legal action against their boss for not giving a job to somebody clearly unsuitable for it.

Their policy is something they set, not you - so they can change it without even telling you. It's not part of your contract of employment because as long as they do not promote for religious, race or any of the 'ist' reasons, that's their business!
 
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
I know why they didn't give me the role - they told me. I have two jobs on the project. One is the job share with my colleague who was promoted. This is simple project management. The other is a technical role that requires qualifications in research. They don't want to take me out of my research role, as they would have to replace me. They think taking my colleague out her role means they won't need to replace her, which fits their current desire to not replace head count.

Utterly bizarre that the two of you who have replied first, have instead of replying to merits of my post as was written, you've speculated on what sector my employment is in and my interaction with colleagues. As you both clearly see yourself as the champions of employers, let me update you to the fact that our partners on the project I work on is one of the largest banks in the world, and they have just sent an email demanding immediate justification for the appointment, how it was completed, and how it will not jeopardise the delivery of the remaining objectives. They have provided money for a certain number of posts on the project, which we have now reduced unilaterally without consultation. So maybe they didn't need to do an open recruitment, and maybe they don't need to adhere to their own policies (though that's debatable), but they are going to have a hard time justifying a breach of contract.

Somewhat perplexed how your answers somehow gave a pass to my employers without knowing any more about who they are, and their justifications. Even if their reasons do not qualify for a discrimination case, it could possibly be that it is a bad business decision. I care deeply about the work I do, and the solution they have proposed involves giving a 3 day a week post, 8 days worth of work to do each week (and I'm sure that maths isn't beyond you) which will affect the quality of our work. So yes, feel free to tell me I may have no legal basis for claim, but maybe rein in you religious commitment to the idea that "business good, employee bad" that your answers betray.
 
Upvote 0

The Byre

Legacy Full Member
Aug 13, 2013
11,835
5,127
I know why they didn't give me the role - they told me. I have two jobs on the project. One is the job share with my colleague who was promoted. This is simple project management. The other is a technical role that requires qualifications in research. They don't want to take me out of my research role, as they would have to replace me. They think taking my colleague out her role means they won't need to replace her, which fits their current desire to not replace head count.

Well, there you go! That's a nice logical explanation.

Sometimes one does not promote the best person, because the best person is better where they are, or perhaps we are saving them up for something in the future.

Employees are also production factors and one has to juggle them according to the task at hand.

There is no pro-employer bias here BTW. I have often seen people getting lambasted here for unfair or even illegal practices as employers.
 
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
Well, there you go! That's a nice logical explanation.

Sometimes one does not promote the best person, because the best person is better where they are, or perhaps we are saving them up for something in the future.

Employees are also production factors and one has to juggle them according to the task at hand.

There is no pro-employer bias here BTW. I have often seen people getting lambasted here for unfair or even illegal practices as employers.

The immediate logic is apparent, but the wider implications for the project are less so given that they have reduced the overall resource on the project, which apart from affecting quality is likely a breach of contract with our funder. Either way, it's clear that there is unlikely to be any legal recourse. I am not actually too bothered if she gets the post or not. We get on very well, and she knows I am raising these issues. In fact, she's so worried about the workload that she's thinking of declining the role. Hell I might not even apply if it is advertised. For me I am worried about the affect of the reducing the resource available on the project. Not because I am worried about doing more work, rather because it will ultimately affect our customers. The point of the last 3 months was so they could make a good business decision, and instead they made a decision based on the fact they left it so late. In that 3 months the entire team has been constructive in suggesting different ways we could ensure quality in the project and mitigating the risks created by my manager leaving. Instead they have exacerbated those risks. So me wanting to raise this is just through a desire to hold them accountable.

I'm sure I'll get responses to that reminding me to know my place, and that the employer makes the decision, not the employee etc etc. However, when a parade of voices, most of whom have no vested interest are telling you something, when your workforce is smart and clearly dedicated to the work they do and are raising concerns around quality, I'd say it doesn't cost an employer a lot to listen, and even they disagree provide some reassurances to respond to those concerns.
 
Upvote 0

paulears

Free Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,011
1,378
Suffolk - UK
I'm sorry you feel the first two responses were negative, and I do understand - BUT - we don;t know you, and can only base our impressions on the content and style of what you say. Your post clearly shows you're upset and mystified. However, the implied tone is angry, grumpy and disgruntled, exactly as I can understand you feeling. What gives the bad impression is using certain words and phrases - "violated their own .......". You choose emotive words, when perhaps "failed to follow" would have been better. Violated has a much stronger association with negativity.

You also need to consider how your employer would feel with having this aired publicly? Luckily, most of my people are self-employed people working on specific projects, but I'd feel pretty angry seeing my own decisions questioned in public? For what it's worth, keeping you in your current role because you are difficult to replace is surely a good reason to ask for a raise? If you are valuable, they'll do it. If they won't then the comment is probably a pacifier.

In my humble view, if you are unhappy with the process then you should make your disappointment, not anger, known to the management. You then have a choice. stay and shut up, or seek work elsewhere on the basis that you offer something others will find equally useful. You then find the job and hand in your notice. At which point your current boss pays you to stay or says goodbye. If you have been a thorn in the side, they'll let you go, if they really need you, they will negotiate. This is perfectly normal.

Maybe, unknown to yourself, you have been seen as a bit abrasive, or vocal, or just a bit awkward. In your bosses place, look at the other person and analyse their strengths compared to you. Maybe your boss wants a passive but efficient manager, not somebody with a strong will and determination their ideas are clearly the best?

Look at your response to two stranger's comments - I'm NOT having a pop, but you joined a forum, and presumably didn't read previous topics of this kind. We try to simply present our individual views. We frequently disagree, but we treat other people's opinions as valid, and talk them through. You expected gentle, beating about the bush supportive stuff I assume, not cold light of day material based only on what we see. Of course we don't yet know you, but as we start to we may understand you better. All of us have our opinions, you must read them and decide of they're valid to your thinking. It's actually good to perhaps see how others view your stance. What if your boss thinks like me?

Lots of employers are on a drive to maximise profitability and are seen as penny pinching and unfair - but look at the people they use regularly and pay less than ideal wages to? They are the ones who rarely rock the boat, or tell the bosses they know best. If they keep these people, it's because their positives outweigh the negatives, not because they like them!
 
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
I'm sorry you feel the first two responses were negative, and I do understand - BUT - we don;t know you, and can only base our impressions on the content and style of what you say. Your post clearly shows you're upset and mystified. However, the implied tone is angry, grumpy and disgruntled, exactly as I can understand you feeling. What gives the bad impression is using certain words and phrases - "violated their own .......". You choose emotive words, when perhaps "failed to follow" would have been better. Violated has a much stronger association with negativity.

You also need to consider how your employer would feel with having this aired publicly? Luckily, most of my people are self-employed people working on specific projects, but I'd feel pretty angry seeing my own decisions questioned in public? For what it's worth, keeping you in your current role because you are difficult to replace is surely a good reason to ask for a raise? If you are valuable, they'll do it. If they won't then the comment is probably a pacifier.

In my humble view, if you are unhappy with the process then you should make your disappointment, not anger, known to the management. You then have a choice. stay and shut up, or seek work elsewhere on the basis that you offer something others will find equally useful. You then find the job and hand in your notice. At which point your current boss pays you to stay or says goodbye. If you have been a thorn in the side, they'll let you go, if they really need you, they will negotiate. This is perfectly normal.

Maybe, unknown to yourself, you have been seen as a bit abrasive, or vocal, or just a bit awkward. In your bosses place, look at the other person and analyse their strengths compared to you. Maybe your boss wants a passive but efficient manager, not somebody with a strong will and determination their ideas are clearly the best?

Look at your response to two stranger's comments - I'm NOT having a pop, but you joined a forum, and presumably didn't read previous topics of this kind. We try to simply present our individual views. We frequently disagree, but we treat other people's opinions as valid, and talk them through. You expected gentle, beating about the bush supportive stuff I assume, not cold light of day material based only on what we see. Of course we don't yet know you, but as we start to we may understand you better. All of us have our opinions, you must read them and decide of they're valid to your thinking. It's actually good to perhaps see how others view your stance. What if your boss thinks like me?

Lots of employers are on a drive to maximise profitability and are seen as penny pinching and unfair - but look at the people they use regularly and pay less than ideal wages to? They are the ones who rarely rock the boat, or tell the bosses they know best. If they keep these people, it's because their positives outweigh the negatives, not because they like them!

With respect I have a law degree. I am not a practising lawyer, hence why I am seeking advice, but "violating" is often used term used to discuss breach of policies. Nothing emotive about it. As is using the term discrimination. Feel free comment on the merits of my claim, but please refrain from projecting tone and emotion onto those words.

Words you have used in relation to me: grumpy, stupid, moan, angry. I can't stop you from saying these things, but if your criticism of me is the words I use, then I would suggest two more words for your: practice, preach.
 
Upvote 0

fisicx

Moderator
Business Listing
Sep 12, 2006
35,625
10,794
Aldershot
www.aerin.co.uk
Your claim will go nowhere. I was in the same situation a few years back and the job went to a young girl no me. I was far more qualified but they felt the girl would be a better fit in the organisation. These things happen. Your complaint seems to boil down to a failure to follow an internal procedure, something they can change if they want to.

Even if you did win a tribunal you still wouldn't get the job so the only outcome will be a lot of bad blood followed by a slow errosion of respect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: namsoni
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
Your claim will go nowhere. I was in the same situation a few years back and the job went to a young girl no me. I was far more qualified but they felt the girl would be a better fit in the organisation. These things happen. Your complaint seems to boil down to a failure to follow an internal procedure, something they can change if they want to.

Even if you did win a tribunal you still wouldn't get the job so the only outcome will be a lot of bad blood followed by a slow errosion of respect.

Cheers. I think you're right. I might raise an internal grievance, but unlikely there is any legal recourse. Of course, ensuring I haven't soured things is important. My contract is due to finish in December as that's when the project finishes. However, another manager has informally approached me about a role that will be available in her team come January (and, yes I would have to apply for it as she wants to follow process, and she's given me no guarantees). You just reach the end of your tether when this happens frequently, and you want some accountability.
 
Upvote 0

paulears

Free Member
Jan 7, 2015
5,011
1,378
Suffolk - UK
I'm amazed with your legal training you still have rose tinted glasses on. If it happens frequently to you, might this not be a trend developing? I'm not going to comment further as it seems a bit pointless. I wish you the best of luck with your career.

You did say you weren't qualified in the first post to offer advice, when clearly as a lawyer, you are far more qualified than us! Violation requires a formal contractual agreement doesn't it? Company policies are rarely contractual, and continually updated and modified. Few companies would be daft enough to make career advancement a formal absolute route, that's why I queried the violation aspect. Probably just me, so ignore it. You consider it such, so fine.
 
Upvote 0

Chris Ashdown

Free Member
Dec 7, 2003
12,510
2,617
Norfolk
Just because someone is excellent at their job does not always make them a good potential manager

Management is a totaly different number of skills and I imagine though have no knowledge of your skills etc, that most researchers tend to follow quite a narrow path searching for the goal, where as management must consider a much wider point of view and skills that are not always tought in professional education or training

In the same situation how much time would you spend on selecting a person for a position that will only last say 12 months, when you already have a smooth running team, who probably need little attention

The proof that the appointed a part time person proves its more a name on a door rather than a position that requires a lot of work

Good luck for January and on
 
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
I'm amazed with your legal training you still have rose tinted glasses on. If it happens frequently to you, might this not be a trend developing? I'm not going to comment further as it seems a bit pointless. I wish you the best of luck with your career.

You did say you weren't qualified in the first post to offer advice, when clearly as a lawyer, you are far more qualified than us! Violation requires a formal contractual agreement doesn't it? Company policies are rarely contractual, and continually updated and modified. Few companies would be daft enough to make career advancement a formal absolute route, that's why I queried the violation aspect. Probably just me, so ignore it. You consider it such, so fine.

A law degree doesn't make me a lawyer. Happy to detail this further if it is not clear. Also it doesn't happen frequently to me, I never said that. This is the first time. I said this happens frequently. I also have conceded that there is no legal recourse, and did so a lot earlier so not sure why you are still repeating the same point

You are utterly desperate to make this entirely about me, my professionalism, my nature, my conduct etc. In the face of that I'm not going to justify myself, apart from saying I am proud of the progress I have made in my career, but also acutely aware of my shortcomings. None of your attempts at guessing what those shortcomings are have been accurate. Equally, even if there were shortcomings I had which I hadn't recognised, the idea that you could identify them here with such little information is laughable, and makes me worry for your employees.

Whilst a law a degree doesn't make me a lawyer, it has taught me to not apply my own prejudices to other people's words, particularly if they are non-verbal. If you can't take things on good faith, at least take them at face value.
 
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
Just because someone is excellent at their job does not always make them a good potential manager

Management is a totaly different number of skills and I imagine though have no knowledge of your skills etc, that most researchers tend to follow quite a narrow path searching for the goal, where as management must consider a much wider point of view and skills that are not always tought in professional education or training

In the same situation how much time would you spend on selecting a person for a position that will only last say 12 months, when you already have a smooth running team, who probably need little attention

The proof that the appointed a part time person proves its more a name on a door rather than a position that requires a lot of work

Good luck for January and on

I partially agree that she probably would be a better manager, and maybe has more experience. However there was no opportunity to demonstrate those skills, or submit an application. Also there are two other people in the team who quite clearly had more experience, and the time needed to the job.

Don't agree though when you say the "the proof" etc. That's not proof of the validity of their decision, it's merely their possible explanation of the decision. As it happens this is not the explanation they are giving (and the person involved is thinking of declining because of the workload) and I am fairly sure the Bank that is funding the position will disagree. They had already expressed concern when my manager resigned.

Either way, appreciate the courtesy of your response, and as you say hopefully it works it out January. For that reason I might decide against a grievance procedure, but think its fair they provide a little more detail on their appointment.
 
Upvote 0
I know why they didn't give me the role - they told me. I have two jobs on the project. One is the job share with my colleague who was promoted. This is simple project management. The other is a technical role that requires qualifications in research. They don't want to take me out of my research role, as they would have to replace me. They think taking my colleague out her role means they won't need to replace her, which fits their current desire to not replace head count.

Utterly bizarre that the two of you who have replied first, have instead of replying to merits of my post as was written, you've speculated on what sector my employment is in and my interaction with colleagues. As you both clearly see yourself as the champions of employers, let me update you to the fact that our partners on the project I work on is one of the largest banks in the world, and they have just sent an email demanding immediate justification for the appointment, how it was completed, and how it will not jeopardise the delivery of the remaining objectives. They have provided money for a certain number of posts on the project, which we have now reduced unilaterally without consultation. So maybe they didn't need to do an open recruitment, and maybe they don't need to adhere to their own policies (though that's debatable), but they are going to have a hard time justifying a breach of contract.

Somewhat perplexed how your answers somehow gave a pass to my employers without knowing any more about who they are, and their justifications. Even if their reasons do not qualify for a discrimination case, it could possibly be that it is a bad business decision. I care deeply about the work I do, and the solution they have proposed involves giving a 3 day a week post, 8 days worth of work to do each week (and I'm sure that maths isn't beyond you) which will affect the quality of our work. So yes, feel free to tell me I may have no legal basis for claim, but maybe rein in you religious commitment to the idea that "business good, employee bad" that your answers betray.

With respect, I took the stance I did because of the content you wrote.

Expecting my to reply to information I am not party to is a little rich don't you tyhink?

Had you stated it was a contractual term then I would have replied differently.

However I do enjoy the irony of you lambasting me (and others) for pre judging, when you yourself have done so in your reply.

You seem to miss the bit I wrote about being all for employee rights'.

Now they have told you why they didn't promote you, so what exactly is your PERSONAL grievance? I don't think you have one. You have been kept in the job you are in because youa re good at it.

If I were in your position my reply to my employer would be simple enough.

Look ,mister bossman, I appreciate you don't want me to have the promotion because it takes me away form the job I am doing. SO... I want a pay rise to reflect this please. I am not fussed about the badges, I just want the benefits I have essentially lost out on because I am good at my job.

I appreciate that you think she can do better,. but I am now shorthanded on this task so would like some compensation for the increase in workload.

I also have to ask how did the bank find out about the change? are they working that closely with your company that they knew or did somebody (possibly youself) inform them?

if theya re working that closely surely they would have been in on the decision.

Now you may not like what I am suggesting here, but if someone in my team went to my customer and breached confidentiality then again I would sack them for gross misconduct.

In my case it ABSOLUTELY is not employer good employee bad.

Businesses can't survive without employees. And good employers ABSOLUTELY do not wish to lose good employees.

I would have called you in, told you I was appointing missy part time girl, and soften the blow with 'I am going to increase your salary to soften the blow as I know you wanted the promotion, but you are just too valuable in your current position'.

I would then have asked how you feel about that (giving you the opportunity to voice your thoughts).

Hopefully she would be happy with her appointment, you would be happy with your pay rise, I would be happy with the new structure, and the Symbiotic relationship would continue.

CAVEAT.
I would have done this through CHOICE, not legal obligation.
 
Upvote 0

namsoni

Free Member
Aug 6, 2015
13
1
With respect, I took the stance I did because of the content you wrote.

Expecting my to reply to information I am not party to is a little rich don't you tyhink?

Had you stated it was a contractual term then I would have replied differently.

However I do enjoy the irony of you lambasting me (and others) for pre judging, when you yourself have done so in your reply.

You seem to miss the bit I wrote about being all for employee rights'.

Now they have told you why they didn't promote you, so what exactly is your PERSONAL grievance? I don't think you have one. You have been kept in the job you are in because youa re good at it.

If I were in your position my reply to my employer would be simple enough.

Look ,mister bossman, I appreciate you don't want me to have the promotion because it takes me away form the job I am doing. SO... I want a pay rise to reflect this please. I am not fussed about the badges, I just want the benefits I have essentially lost out on because I am good at my job.

I appreciate that you think she can do better,. but I am now shorthanded on this task so would like some compensation for the increase in workload.

I also have to ask how did the bank find out about the change? are they working that closely with your company that they knew or did somebody (possibly youself) inform them?

if theya re working that closely surely they would have been in on the decision.

Now you may not like what I am suggesting here, but if someone in my team went to my customer and breached confidentiality then again I would sack them for gross misconduct.

In my case it ABSOLUTELY is not employer good employee bad.

Businesses can't survive without employees. And good employers ABSOLUTELY do not wish to lose good employees.

I would have called you in, told you I was appointing missy part time girl, and soften the blow with 'I am going to increase your salary to soften the blow as I know you wanted the promotion, but you are just too valuable in your current position'.

I would then have asked how you feel about that (giving you the opportunity to voice your thoughts).

Hopefully she would be happy with her appointment, you would be happy with your pay rise, I would be happy with the new structure, and the Symbiotic relationship would continue.

CAVEAT.
I would have done this through CHOICE, not legal obligation.

I think we have slightly differ on our approach to these matters. Again here you have speculated with regards to my professionalism, in informing the bank. I have never, and would never do that. They are contractually obligated to inform on changes in staffing structure, which clearly they have done hence the response which was forwarded on to me. What's interesting is that you have nothing to say about the fact they informed the bank, and all the staff at a staff meeting, when the person in question wasn't present and hasn't in fact accepted the post.

I appreciate your suggestion on the salary, and possibly I might do that. However, extra salary doesn't compensate for lost human resources. I genuinely care about my work, and delivering good products to the customer. I think we will struggle to do that, and my current manager agrees. Of course, this is not my decision, but equally I am not obliged to stick around if I think the project is heading for a disaster because of lack of human resources, particularly if I think it is the staff that are in place going forward which will blamed.

As for the grievance, I have conceded that I have no legal recourse. However, they have very specifically stated when they can deviate from their recruitment policy, and this does not qualify even if I take account of their explanation. In that regard I am entitled to raise a formal grievance (i.e. the internal process, not the a legal avenue). Of course I might get told it would damage my career, or to suck it up etc, and sadly I might end up doing that. But equally the company has no obligation to even have a policy on recruitment, so create expectations that they are unable to meet?

As for judging you in my subsequent posts, I don't think I particularly overreached in my opinions. However, you were rude. I'm not sure what about my original post, which started off with an apology, then described the situation factually, went onto detail the companies own policy, and finished with a query, to which I was happy for people to tell me I had no legal avenue, warranted your response? After your response though, I don't see why I should extend any more courtesy to you, than you have for me.

Ultimately I appreciate the advice, so thank you.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Subscribe to our newsletters

ukbf logo
ukbf logo

Real community whatever your business.
Sign up to our full membership View Documentation

About us

  • Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.

Quick Navigation

User Menu