[Closed] discrimination at work...

She should start off by asking for feedback.

the only feedback they gave her was that there was a candidate that gave more in depth answers...what's more surprising is that she is on a band 4 salary applying for a band 6, but the girl who got the job was on a band 3...my wife thinks the feedback and reason were pretty lame and that another senior director who hates her for some reason has had a hand in this...they already screwed her over once when they made her current post a band 5 salary for the maternity cover while she has been off...

If she does not have the qualifications then she may have a point but as noted ask for feedback

Please note an interview is there to discriminate between people- it is what they do. Was it a better interview for example? IMHO it will be hard to prove an unfair discrimination[ gender, race, sexuality etc] when they are both the same gender

Angering your employer is rarely a good idea
Chat first with them and then decide

Not getting a job sucks but the reason may be that you were just not the best candidate or that it was nepotism/discrimination.

IME HR never leave a smoking bullet when they do this [ nepotism] - Union rep not HR

sounds almost exactly the same storey as my wife

her junior with less experience, less qualifications (which were detailed in the Job description) got the job. My wife even said she'd come back from maternity leave early, oh and she'd covered almost exactly the same roll for somebody else on maternity leave the year before and got nothing but positive feedback. Her junior jumped 2 or 3 pay grades over her (local council).

she's not looking forward to going back to work in 3 weeks.

stinks but nothing you can prove unless the boss actually said something, even then your word against there's.

chuff all you can do imo 🙁

Difficult really to say really, but getting feedback would be the first thing to do.

Qualifications and experience aren't the only reason for offering someone a job, although common sense suggests that the person with the most would be a good candidate.

They interviewed her, she wasn't selected
Why is that discrimination?
Maybe the successful candidate interviewed better/ showed off their added value better. Just because you have an interview, doesn't mean you have the right to a job - even if you are on maternity leave.

There is lots of supposition in the reasons "why". So, the other candidate was on band 3, she's not costing any less in the new position is she ?
For whatever reason , it was not to be ...

Does the new appointee have kids?

As for nepotism in the NHS: it happens. My partner is just about to lose his job due to anxiety/depression and a bullying atmosphere. His boss was useless and unhelpful.

He couldn't complain to *her* boss really as her boss is her husband, who had re-organised the department last year and lo! There she was in that job.

I work for a major IT organisation and if that happened here the husband would have been thrown out on his ear immediately for nepotism or at least conflict of interest. 😕

They interviewed her, she wasn't selected
Why is that discrimination?

maybe because when she returns her post will revert to a band 4 salary but her maternity cover was paid at a higher level for doing the same job...she met the girl who was covering for her during the handover period before she left....unqualified and inexperienced for the job...when she queried this (after she was given reassurances that the salary would stay the same) they stonewalled her and the director who reassured her went back on her word and denied everything. she feels the decision to offer the post to someone with less experience and qualifications has been down to this very same director...she also applied for another post there at the same time and again they interviewed her and turned her down (that was the week before...
incidentally the job spec did say that it was essential to have relevant finance qualifications and a minimum working experience of 2 years in NHS finance...the girl who gt the job has been there for a years and this was her first job out of college (never went to uni)...so for someone to get in ahead with 12 months experience and no qualifications over someone with 10 years experience with the relevant experience.....seems to me like there is something very fishy going on...but like you said without a smoking gun there's very little she can do

Does the new appointee have kids?

she's only 19...still a kid herself...

there could be a case of nepotism as the girl who got the job, her brother in law did that very job until he left last year...
seeing as my wife trained her up in the first place...no doubt when things start to go wrong...she'll come running to her to ask her to fix things for her

Applying for several jobs suggests you just what "a better job" not "this was the one I really wanted" ...
She has the right to ask for feedback, express her disappointment - but it's still not discrimination.

At the end of the day, they may have chosen the younger girl for all the right reasons - she was the best candidate.

As a recruiting manager you may see all the internal applications someone has made.

Last role I hired for I saw someone with 47 applications, the covering letter was essentially spam. They didn't get an interview

I hired a person with less experience than others because I saw the potential in the person and they demonstrated a stong desire to do the job.

Is that discrimination?

they both applied for the same 2 jobs that came up....hardly demonstrates desperation...

she's only 19...still a kid herself...

Maybe so, but the 19 year old might not have any children (or certainly during her interview, mentioned she has no plans for the next 5-10 years, and wants to focus on her career instead.)

From a managers perspective:

Children = Time off work to deal with their sickness, school holiday cover, doctors/dentist/hospital appointments for them.... the list goes on for reasons [b]not[/b] to employ someone who's got children vs. not.

In other words, from a managers perspective - staff with children (especially young ones) are *potentially* a real pain in the backside. I have a colleague who's kids (aged 11 + 12) keep running away from school (or not bother to turn up in the morning). He commutes by train (1hr 15m from home to office), yet constantly has to rush back home to sort them out. From a staffing point of view, he's a nightmare.

Unfair? Yes, I don't disagree with you.

Reality? You seem to be experiencing the unfairness.

Xiphon that thought process is discriminatory. Any question about family plans are verboten.

Whoever said life was fair?

How many highly experienced middle managers stay middle managers rather than being appointed Directors, despite the fact that are older and have more experience than the newly appointed Director.

That's the problem one faces in large organisations....your face fits or it doesn't for too many reasons to mention.

Having been in the "hiring manager"s shoes a few times, I'd say around 50% of those who failed to get a job were convinced they'd been the subject of unfair discrimination, even when feedback was offered/given. Some folk are just [i]so[/i] self-confident they can't see past themselves.

So let's get this right. Your wife and another person applied for a job, the other candidate gave better in depth answers?

Right where's the discrimination apart from you thinking at 19 the candidate is too young?

Speak to union rep- hopefully they'll stick up for your missus but doesn't always happen like that in the Nhs.

Right where's the discrimination apart from you thinking at 19 the candidate is too young?

The bit where the other person doesn't have the minimum required experience and qualifications specified on the job description perhaps?

Is she in a union?

Quite simply, your wife was [b]not[/b] the most suitable candidate for the job, in the eyes of the people hiring.

@Sandwich - yes, I agree it is, but sometimes unavoidable (Interviewers know Candidate A has been on maternity leave and has two young children at home - vs. - Candidate B is single, has vocalised previously they wish to put their career before family, etc etc.). One of the major downsides to internal candidates, is the interviewers sometimes know [i]too much[/i] about the candidates - and can't base their decision solely on CV and interview.

@grum - Perhaps the "minimum requirements" is a guideline, but they felt the 19 year old was more suited to the role, regardless of what's on her CV.

The bit where the other person doesn't have the minimum required experience and qualifications specified on the job description perhaps?

That's not discrimination, they know both candidates sounds to me like they wanted the other candidate as they think she's better for the job. Giving a better interview at 19 is impressive and they've probably seen how she works given she already works there.

You might as well claim the interviewer was sexually motivated and hired the other candidate because they were having affairs outside of work.

I mean, you know, really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

That's not discrimination,

It not discrimination but it is not objective either...Not aware of anywhere you can shortlist if you dont have the qualifications

Not worth stressing over in my opinion. So many things can determine if you get the job, ive seen unqualified immediate family members get the job!

[quote=Junkyard ]
It not discrimination but it is not objective either
If it was always completely objective - based on qualifications, length of experience etc, there would be no need for interviews. 😀

If it was always completely objective - based on qualifications, length of experience etc, there would be no need for interviews.

Given how we keep hearing that most jobs get dozens of (often well qualified) applications - how does someone who doesn't meet the minimum requirements even get an interview? Or was this only advertised internally?

Maybe your missus went in there with the attitude that she would walk it, gave too short, incomplete answers, did not show enough enthusiasm for the role.
Suck it up, move on.
Employers want to see what you do when you DONT get the job, just as much as when you do.

Hopw can you discriminate against someone not getting the job, she didnt gert the job because the other girl got it, for better answers probably and not being off on maternity leave for a few months, and your wife already having a job to possibly walkback into, thats if she stays there or gets transfered somewhere else.

For Adam W, when i worked in the NHS, partners or wives where not allowed to work with each other or be in direct control of each other, eg managing each other.

They where always seperated or told to apply for another job.

Some people interview better than others.

I applied for a job recently and despite having lots more experience than the guy who got it, my interview wasn't as strong as the other candidate.

Some people just give the right answers.

Or because the 19 yr old is hot? 😀

Or because she is easier to order around and has bag of energy to work long hour? Well, she is 19 so they are going to take away her leisure life knowing that she is in her early career and put her to hard labour in the dept? No?

Whereas an experience person might have a set mind which can be difficult to change ... or simply they are not hot enough. I bet the 19yr old wear camel toe leggings / tights whatever that is ...

A hot person usually gets the job ... 🙄

I have a first aid certificate should I apply to be a paramedic?

Of course you can but you'll have to do the 2 years training and then prove to our registration body that you are capable. That's assuming you get through the application process.

I have a first aid certificate should I apply to be a paramedic?

Of course you can but you'll have to do the 2 years training and then prove to our registration body that you are capable. That's assuming you get through the application process.

But you do get to drive a transit fast, wear a green romper suit,be abused, be sick on, screamed at, and told you took your time didnt you.

and if youre relly lucky get to appear on a tv show with a pixelated face.

Oh and you may actually get someone who says "THANKYOU "once in a while.

I have a first aid certificate should I apply to be a paramedic?

Of course you can but you'll have to do the 2 years training and then prove to our registration body that you are capable. That's assuming you get through the application process.

But you do get to drive a transit fast, wear a green romper suit,be abused, be sick on, screamed at, and told you took your time didnt you.

and if youre relly lucky get to appear on a tv show with a pixelated face.

Oh and you may actually get someone who says "THANKYOU "once in a while.

Thank You

Sounds more like a case of suck it up, man up and move on I'm afraid. Maybe its down the fact that the young 'un just came across better - she actually wanted the job, willing to work for less, is already part of the team and if she's given a better interview at 19 then good on her!! It's about time younger, enthusiastic people were given a chance based on real life experience rather than what's on paper or time spent working there...

I've been in similar situations before (i think) where I've got the job based on merit & enthusiasm yet being under qualified & having less experience than other candidates... Possibly down the fact that I'd work for less and less commitments. Yeah it pissed people off but I wanted that job..

The 19yr old may have been selected for the job as she has shown willingness by covering a higher band, has proved herself and is also aware that the cover is coming to an end and hence there is a reason to look for another job.

I'd be pretty upset if I applied for a job and it was given to someone else on the basis they were older and more experienced and therefore somehow more important than myself, especially if I had gone in to cover higher roles etc.

You might as well claim the interviewer was sexually motivated and hired the other candidate because they were having affairs outside of work.

sorry that wont work as its well documented at work that he plays for the other team...

Given how we keep hearing that most jobs get dozens of (often well qualified) applications - how does someone who doesn't meet the minimum requirements even get an interview? Or was this only advertised internally?

it was done internally but like you said regardless of how it was advertised if you are going to have criteria to base all applicants on why interview anyone who doesnt meet that criteria...

also just to be clear...the role she applied for is part of a team where all the staff members work reduced hours as they are all parents...my wife had already had her request for reduced hours upon her return to work agreed and there was no issue around this...
the feedback she got was that she interviewed brilliantly and scored the highest on the test...they said the other girl gave more in depth answers on two questions - data sourcing and multitasking...

also the director who has a vendetta against my wife because she questioned her decision to make the maternity cover for her existing role to a higher grade before returning it to the lower grade on her return also used to be friends with one of my wife's other friends...but since they have fallen out she has been increasingly frosty towards her because my wife's relationship with her....we know this is the case but its hard to prove...this same director has had a very influential role in the recruitment process...

She might of even asked for less money.

my wife has spoken to the other girl...and the salary has not been reduced...
she bears no ill feeling towards the girl but is angry at the process and the decisions of senior management...

sometimes decisions seem unfair but were made for good reason, sometimes decisions are made and really were unfair or discriminatory.

thing is you'll never know, you'll never get a straight answer or you'll struggle to understand\believe it if you do.

unless the boss actually admits to something which is never going to happen there's nothing you can do after the fact but move on.

Hard to see why this is dicimination or an issue requiring unions. If I understand correctly:

1 you wife has her old job to go back to
2 she has applied for different jobs within the same firm
3 she has been unsuccessful
4 the other candidate performed better in the interview (apparently)
5 your wife thinks she is under qualified
6 presumably those hiring for the role disagree
7 they hire the other lady

Sound like, she just needs better luck (or perhaps preparation) for the next opportunity that comes up. I hope that goes her way, but on the basis of what you have said here, I can't see any reason for stirring up trouble in this case or any grounds to do so. More likely to come back and burn her unless there is more happening than you have outlined.

Surely the only unfairness / discrimination here is that the OP's wife will go back to her old position on her old grade, yet that position was re-graded at a higher level for the period of her maternity leave. Either the job is the higher grade or it's not - I can't see how it can be reduced to a lower grade once the original post-holder returns.

Surely the only unfairness / discrimination here is that the OP's wife will go back to her old position on her old grade, yet that position was re-graded at a higher level for the period of her maternity leave. Either the job is the higher grade or it's not - I can't see how it can be reduced to a lower grade once the original post-holder returns.

that bit is true...i should have been clearer from the beginning the discrimination is mainly around this issue...that her role was re-graded at a higher level while she was off but will revert to the lower grade on her return... their reasoning is that while she was off her cover would have to also work on a another project that was contracted to the NHS...but my wife had also been working on this very same project for 18 months in addition to the role...the fact that she questioned this decision pissed of the director who made the decision and she has shown contempt towards my wife ever since....she has also been involved in the decision making process for the two roles she has applied for and has been turned down for both...also due to my wife's friendship with someone who the said director now sees as an enemy (her words) is also a factor in the way she treats my wife and possibly had an effect in the desicion not to offer her one of the jobs...but like you say 29erKeith with little or no evidence there's little my wife can do...

with regards to the interview she bears no ill feeling towards the successful candidate but the process used to appoint her...

your wife thinks she is under qualified

Well sounds harsh...maybe comes down to interpretation of "relevant work experience up to that level." sounds like plenty of wiggle room there. Anyway there are no answers of STW, but hope she has better luck in the future.

THM it is like you are saying recruiters never ever make a decison based on anything other than objective measures of the candidates...you are not that naive are you?

maybe comes down to interpretation of "relevant work experience up to that level."

so an accountancy degree, 8 years NHS finance and CIMA qualified is the equivalent to fresh out of college doing a levels and 12 months of NHS finance experience is it....??

gonzy, you can complain all you want - but at the end of the day, your wife got 2nd place.

Move on?

It happens all the time. There's more to life than the NHS though. If wifey's that aggrieved, perhaps she should look around?

Hi gonzy,
I just mentioned your wife's situation to a mate, he's a HR manager also working for the NHS, he says it definitely sounds like you've got a case.

He advised that your wife join a union if not already in one, then put in a grievance with HR, list all your points and build your case, and take it as high as possible, but yep he said the way you've described it and the way the 19 year old jumped from a band 3 to a band 6 sounds off.

Good luck

And another 1p goes on the tax bill 😀

Recruiting and interviewing people is not a case of "you have the best qualifications and the most experience, we'll have you", if it was (as mentioned earlier) there would be no need for interviews. Interviews (should) also look for potential for growth, personality fit, drive for the job and a whole myriad of other things away from the CV.

For these reasons the Op's wife got beaten by anther candidate that the interviewers feel was a better candidate, accept it and move on, this is exactly what the interview process is there for. Oh, and don't mention the candidates age and discrimination in relation to the job, there are plenty of people who are wonderful at their jobs with only 1 year of experience and I suspect an equal number who are very average at it after 5 years or more.

Sooo many variables OP:

We are all different at work, does your wife have an abrasive character etc etc etc etc. What if (you'd be the same) the hiring manager felt he just didn't gell? Would you hire someone that you didn't connect or felt awkward with?

I've lost count how many times a role is advertised with x criteria and almost over-qualified candidates (or even just candidates with ticked all boxes [b][u]on paper[/u][/b] are beaten at interview by a candidate who has seen as enthusiastic, willing and with potential. The hiring manager (it happens countless times) may take the view he may restructure workload/responsibilities within the team and give more responsibility to another existing member etc.

It could possibly be your wife (NO offence) thought the role was hers and didn't perform as she could have done at an interview. The role was hers for losing.

If you go chasing this role/situation internally what does that say?

Once upon a time this could have been your open wife? Up and coming, enthusiastic. Wants to learn/develop herself further with part time study etc. She won the role at interview. Remember, it doesn't always go to the best candidate on paper.

Finally. Thank heavens the other candidate wasn't a bloke. You'd be royally chasing 'what is rightfully yours' wouldn't you then.

So anybody here work for the NHS or have experience?

AFAIK (correct me if I'm mistaken)The banding system is there for this reason, the inexperienced under qualified employee gets the training/experience by working their way up the bands, a band 6 is just short of managerial, how does a 19 year old college leaver go from a band 3 to a band 6 within such a short period of time?

If it was in a different department I.e admin, marketing etc then it is understandable as no real professional qualifications are needed, but the finance department?

The only reason I can think of is, they will probably start her on the lowest possible band 6 salary where as they would have to pay your wife the nearer the top end of the scale.

Might not have been offered a band6 but a lower grade?

If wifey's that aggrieved, perhaps she should look around?

her maternity leave finishes next month and she has to go back to work and do a minimum of 3 months before she can leave...she would love to leave before that but we simply cant afford to pay back the maternity pay if she does...

just to add i had another look at the person/job spec and it said it was essential that the successful candidate had to have a degree in a finance related subject and had to be either ACCA or CIMA qualified...the candidate had neither so why did she even get an interview in the first place when she did not meet the criteria...
the salary grading was in actual fact a grade 7 not 6 as i had originally thought...
the girl has also confirmed to my wife that they have offered the job at the band 7 salary and not at a lower grade..
she also contacted my wife immediately after her interview and said that she struggled to answer some of the questions as she didnt know the answers...more in depth answers my left butt cheek!!
the more my wife digs into this the more it seems like it was a set up...but like you say they have covered their tracks pretty well and she has no physical proof so cant prove anything....i've told her she has to take this on the chin and put it down to experience now and move on but that does not stop her from still feeling shafted which she has in this case...

Hmmm.... Here's me with 25 years experience in critical care wondering exactly how hard any of these folk work for their band 6 and 7s...

I've conducted internal interviews, it's HELL. There is always a candidate who has been there for 20 years, and frankly doesn't even see why they should have to go through the process, it's just insulting. The whole thing is conducted as a Future Grievance Avoidance Exercise.

OK I'm exaggerating but this kind of attitude does come across at interviews, more in what isn't said. And the other lassie is just trying to make your wife feel better.

She needs to learn from this and move on, and before she files a grievance, she should have a think about what she is trying to achieve with it. She won't get handed the job.

She won't get handed the job.

she didnt expect to be handed the job but if the process of recruitment had been fair and she had been beaten to the post by someone who actually met the criteria then that would have been fair and she would have gladly accepted the outcome....the fact that the successful candidate did not meet the criteria in the first place and should not have even been interviewed suggests that something is not right about the recruitment process within that division of the NHS....my wife's grievance is towards the process and the actions of the key decision makers in this whole episode

just to add i had another look at the person/job spec and it said it was essential that the successful candidate had to have a degree in a finance related subject and had to be either ACCA or CIMA qualified...the candidate had neither so why did she even get an interview in the first place when she did not meet the criteria...

Been in the recieving end but postively when someone else had to stand down for a job [ after the interview] because they did not have a degree. it was of no relevance to the role but meant i got it over them...we both agreed it was unfair though

Ultimately what would you like to see happen OP?

The Job taken away from the girl and given to your partner?

Compensation?

Neither are particularly pleasant.

Been in the recieving end but postively when someone else had to stand down for a job [ after the interview] because they did not have a degree. it was of no relevance to the role but meant i got it over them...we both agreed it was unfair though

i agree with this and so does the wife that if the post had no relevance to education/qualifications then she would have no qualms about losing out to the girl but as the education/qualifications are relevant to the post and the girl did not fulfill this criteria, then there must be something wrong with the recruitment process...

Hora given your profession why not add something constructive?
They may not be "pleasant" but what has happened seems to be outside of normal practice within recruitment - why not give your view on this?
Would you say it is the norm to give the job to candidates who do not have the essential criteria for the job ?
Is it the norm to even interview them?
is it the norm within the public sector?

Your right though none of this is pleasant I would question now whether it is fair and whether they can actually do this tbh- possibly can in private sectir but I am not aware of anyone ever being shortlisted who did not meet the essential criteria for any job in the public sector

Does sound a bit crap, even if your wife was much worse at the interview it doesn't sound like the successful candidate is actually qualified, I'm surprised the people doing the hiring are willing to take that risk.
Personally I lost out on an internal promotion about 10 years ago, on paper I was the obvious candidate but I sucked in the interview and the other guy got it, slightly awkward as he was then my boss but it all worked out in the end - his role became much more managerial and spreadsheet based and mine stayed technical which is what I wanted anyway.
Not really sure there's much you can do in this your wife's situation without some obvious evidence to support your case, she'll likely just do more harm to her career if she raises a grievance and nothing can be proved. Sucks but this is reality, shit happens.

Ultimately what would you like to see happen OP?

The Job taken away from the girl and given to your partner?

Compensation?

Neither are particularly pleasant.

the wife wants neither, whats done is done...she really likes this girl and doesnt blame her for getting the job, and wouldnt want the job taken away from her...she doesnt begrudge her for applying to the job...everyone is entitled to apply...but there was a selection criteria that was in place that the girl did not meet and the senior managers/directors either failed to see that or completely ignored it...
in an ideal world she would like to see this addressed so it doesnt happen again in the future and those who were involved in the decision making process should be held accountable...but in reality that's not going to happen so she's going to have to suck it up and soldier on for the next 3 months before she can leave...

It's only 3 months.

Head down, get it done & leave. When she has an exit interview, then is the time to come clean.

Can she speak to HR independenelty re recruitment procedures. I would be surprised if they wish to defend this or this is within agreed guidelines

IANAL but i when people do not folow their own guidelines for things they are on very dodgy ground.
I would be amazed if they can select folk for intereview/jobs who dont have the essential criteria as it is essential you have them to do the job

FWIW I am a union rep - though I have also been management and recruited- and i have never heard of anything like this tbh.
I would ask HR tbh.

Junkyard I see allsorts in all ways. Some wonderful which is why I still do the job.

(sorry I was meaning she won't get handed the job as a result of the grievance process - not suggesting that she thought she was owed the job, apols for unclearness !)

But railing against the perceived unfairness isn't helping, and the more she does this the worse it will be for everyone. It's just work at the end of the day, and if the knob ends employed somebody younger who really isn't up to the job then they will have to deal with the problems with that at some point. Best advice is as loads of people above have said. Smile nicely, don't sue them, polish her CV.

BTW- OP I can sympathise. It seems like you are inbetween a rock and a hardplace on this.

amaan - Member

So anybody here work for the NHS or have experience?

Yes I have, including recruiting/appointing people in the NHS, and explaining to disgruntled candidates why they didn't get the job. Happily I have never had to appoint someone who interviewed well but I knew to be the 'wrong' person, as the good ones I appointed also scored highest at interview. (and with shortlisting maybe 8 for interview out of as many as 70 applicants, I have also ruthlessly binned lord knows how many applications without the right qualifications and experience!)

IMHO, to be able to go from a b3 to b6 at age 19 in finance dept without professional qualifications suggests to me that the bandings of posts is rather up the spout, ie that b6 should be a 5 or less. And/or that there has been some serious back-scratching and golf played.

However, and it is sad to say that a 'good' hr/workforce development department (and by 'good', I mean one that effectively protects the interests of the organisation and the Chosen Few against the interests of the rest of the rokforce and the patients) will have covererd all bases, and there will be a 'legit' but obviously cooked-up explanation for everything that has happened including a rationale for how the successful candidte has been offered a post lacking major parts of the person spec.

By all means involve unions of you want to blow smoke up their asses but I wouldn't expect to have a band 6 at the end of it. 🙁

You can fly up the NHS bands quickly - in 12 months, my wife went from Band 2 (Health Care Assistant) to Band 6 (currently covering for someone who's a Band 7).

Wife interviews for bands 3-6 on a regular basis and I mentioned your wife's situation. She confirms that candidates are invited to interview on the basis of meeting qualification/experience criteria, they are then asked a variety of set questions which they are then marked on. No different from most other interview processes.Unfortunately for your wife the successful candidate scored higher -only in the situation where more than one candidate has the same highest score does other factors such as experience fall into the mix.
Looking at the glass half full, your wife needs to see this as a learning opportunity and go for it again next time and succeed. Easier said than done.

and there will be a 'legit' but obviously cooked-up explanation for everything that has happened including a rationale for how the successful candidte has been offered a post lacking major parts of the person spec.

By all means involve unions of you want to blow smoke up their asses but I wouldn't expect to have a band 6 at the end of it.

She confirms that candidates are invited to interview on the basis of meeting qualification/experience criteria

Would have been helpful if I had read the second page - 😳
Definetly something fundamentally wrong there if the other candidate did not meet essential qualifications/experience and in addition if HR confirmed that your wife scored highest.
Something very strange happening in the process. Yep worth taking the matter up with a union rep.

Just sounds like a lot of typical public sector, not-living-in-the-real-world whining to me!

Getting unions involved? For the love of God! Seriously?

[img] [/img]

*runs off and hides* 😛

in all honesty she wouldnt accept the post if they offered itto her now as she knows she'd be doing a job they didnt want her to have so gave it to someone who didnt meet the criteria...
like i have said the director who is in the thick of all this has been waging a vendetta against her ever since she questioned the fact they increased the salary for her maternity cover but would revert it on her return...but once again my wife cant prove this vendetta as the director is playing very cleverly...

binners - i was expecting a comical comment from you a lot sooner... 😀

On the plus side, your misses is going back to her old role, on reduced hours. This old role she will be able to do in her sleep which is a good thing, as having a young toddler at home, at least she can catch up on her sleep somewhere.

As for the mat cover and appointment of new role it does sound as if your misses was shafted.
I think the managerial team liked the other girl and she proved herself whole on covering the position and the new role was a 'done deal' for her and they held show interviews to prove an open and fair practice.

Have a chat with a union rep, but submitting any sort of "unfair" claim will mark your misses as a trouble maker and might make any further promotions difficult. Unfair but true.

My suggestion would be to suck it up for the 3 months she has to work. Take it easy at work and do the bear minimum and concentrate on being a mum. Continue to look for another position either in or out of the NHS.