Should I Submit A Grievance? Instruct Solicitor?
Discussion
I've been temporarily promoted in my team for a considerable amount of time, being paid accordingly.
The 'vacancy' came up for interview and I failed to score high enough to secure the role. I admit it was a car crash but I had to decipher each question before I could answer them and one question I had no idea how to answer it. None of the questions had any relevance to the role but this is how they do them nowadays; they are 'strength' or 'behaviour' based questions.
I am always being given credit at work for going above & beyond expectations. My manager, who was not allowed to interview me, and very angry for not being able to, just wants me to stay in the role.
The successful applicant turned down the role when offered.
I have still not been offered the role as I didn't pass the merit score needed.
I have never had any bad marks against my work.
If I am not good enough to do the job, why haven't I been removed? Interviews are supposed to find out if you are suitable for the role, aren't they?
I've been in this role 4 years in September. Should I submit a grievance? How would I go about doing so? What do they have to do when they receive it?
And would it be better to talk to a solicitor first?
Thanks for any advice!
The 'vacancy' came up for interview and I failed to score high enough to secure the role. I admit it was a car crash but I had to decipher each question before I could answer them and one question I had no idea how to answer it. None of the questions had any relevance to the role but this is how they do them nowadays; they are 'strength' or 'behaviour' based questions.
I am always being given credit at work for going above & beyond expectations. My manager, who was not allowed to interview me, and very angry for not being able to, just wants me to stay in the role.
The successful applicant turned down the role when offered.
I have still not been offered the role as I didn't pass the merit score needed.
I have never had any bad marks against my work.
If I am not good enough to do the job, why haven't I been removed? Interviews are supposed to find out if you are suitable for the role, aren't they?
I've been in this role 4 years in September. Should I submit a grievance? How would I go about doing so? What do they have to do when they receive it?
And would it be better to talk to a solicitor first?
Thanks for any advice!
simon_harris said:
What sort of company do you work for? Might make a difference to if there is any leeway with the "rules" Also how long have you been doing the role, there may be something there you can use as leverage
I work in a litigation role for the civil service.It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
Edited by Fastchas on Tuesday 12th August 11:26
Chris Peacock said:
What do you want the outcome of the grievance to be?
Not sure, but ultimately I think doing the role for 4 years should mean some consideration is given to that. They say they can't and have to mark me as just another applicant. Why are they searching for someone else when they have someone who's been in the seat for 4 years. Who is going to complain if I was given some leeway and given the job?I'm actually a Band 3, acting up into a Band 4 role. My Band 5 manager thought he would get to interview me but was disgusted to hear that two Band 9's and a Band 7 would be on the panel. Total overkill for a Band 4 appointment.
Being Devils advocate here, is this necessarily a bad thing? We as a country want the best people in the civil service, especially considering they don't have a great reputation and productivity is terrible.
If the bosses can get an Oxbridge grad doing your job much better for the same money then why not? Of course they won't be able to and you may be amazing at the role and nobody else could be better, but surely they should try?
If the bosses can get an Oxbridge grad doing your job much better for the same money then why not? Of course they won't be able to and you may be amazing at the role and nobody else could be better, but surely they should try?
How has the role not been filled in 4 years? Presumably long term sick of the incumbent?
They clearly don't want you to do the role permanently, and you've given them reason since you didn't meet the grade.
I'm not sure how you can submit a grievance for not being successful when following an already defined recruitment process.
They would surely be opening themselves up for all kinds of discrimination claims if you were employed just because your line manager wanted you to be?
They clearly don't want you to do the role permanently, and you've given them reason since you didn't meet the grade.
I'm not sure how you can submit a grievance for not being successful when following an already defined recruitment process.
They would surely be opening themselves up for all kinds of discrimination claims if you were employed just because your line manager wanted you to be?
I wouldn't be raising a grievance, it doesn't sound like the most appropriate response given you have failed a required metric. From their perspective, you can do the job but you didn't score well enough in behaviours to be considered a long term fit/align to their minimum standard.
Ridiculous perhaps, but I personally hire based on behaviours over skillset - you can teach skills etc. If they ignore the scoring then it could create issues/comeback for other roles.
I'd say it's a discussion with your manager and how willing they are to fight for you - they will need to push it up the chain and justify the exception (perhaps by saying you demonstrate the behaviours to the required standard and provide examples).
Ridiculous perhaps, but I personally hire based on behaviours over skillset - you can teach skills etc. If they ignore the scoring then it could create issues/comeback for other roles.
I'd say it's a discussion with your manager and how willing they are to fight for you - they will need to push it up the chain and justify the exception (perhaps by saying you demonstrate the behaviours to the required standard and provide examples).
You have not been offered the role, have you asked the Head of HR to do so? Noting that you are performing the role and were simply flustered at interview etc? Have you asked them to explain why they do not feel you are suitable to undertake the role whilst you are doing so? It really depends upon how hard you want to rock the boat.
All the above advice/answers are great, thanks.
It's civil service so they have to have 'open & fair competition' when interviewing applicants.
I was flustered at the interview and I was completely steamrollered when they asked q's not relevant to the role. I was prepared, I thought, but not prepared for what they asked. When I requested feedback, I read to one of the panel the question and argued it's ambiguity. She actually looked down at the question for some time and agreed she could see why I had a problem with that particular one!
I suppose what I would want from the outcome of a grievance is for their policy to be reconsidered.
I suppose I'm old school (55yo) and not comfortable with the modern ways of working. I've had one day off in those four years (the day after a Covid jab, couldn't get out of bed). I'm dependable, conscientious and always being congratulated for a job well done, it seems.
But ultimately, this means nothing to them.
It's civil service so they have to have 'open & fair competition' when interviewing applicants.
I was flustered at the interview and I was completely steamrollered when they asked q's not relevant to the role. I was prepared, I thought, but not prepared for what they asked. When I requested feedback, I read to one of the panel the question and argued it's ambiguity. She actually looked down at the question for some time and agreed she could see why I had a problem with that particular one!
I suppose what I would want from the outcome of a grievance is for their policy to be reconsidered.
I suppose I'm old school (55yo) and not comfortable with the modern ways of working. I've had one day off in those four years (the day after a Covid jab, couldn't get out of bed). I'm dependable, conscientious and always being congratulated for a job well done, it seems.
But ultimately, this means nothing to them.
Fastchas said:
I was in the POA some years ago but stopped my subs in maybe 2016 as they are useless.
I suppose I could join them to be able to take advantage of them instructing a solicitor on my behalf...
However, what is your overall aim, best case and worst case scenarios. Nuclear or peaceful etc. etc.
ETA - just to give examples, you could suggest this is age discrimination and light the blue touch paper, you could also argue (and I most certainly would be in your shoes) that your contract has been changed to this role with the commensurate salary etc by virtue of the fact you have been undertaking it for over 3 years........... 3 mths would not be a great argument but 3 years certainly would be in my view both reasonable and sensible to consider a variation in your employment contract. Just saying...
Edited by Jasandjules on Tuesday 12th August 15:36
Fastchas said:
I work in a litigation role for the civil service.
It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
That sounds interesting. I might apply for that.It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
Would you describe yourself as easy to manage?
Doofus said:
Fastchas said:
I work in a litigation role for the civil service.
It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
That sounds interesting. I might apply for that.It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
Would you describe yourself as easy to manage?
Chris Peacock said:
Doofus said:
Fastchas said:
I work in a litigation role for the civil service.
It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
That sounds interesting. I might apply for that.It will be 4 years next month. The first advert for the role was internal, within the Service, but the next one will be external.
Would you describe yourself as easy to manage?
Fastchas said:
Not sure, but ultimately I think doing the role for 4 years should mean some consideration is given to that. They say they can't and have to mark me as just another applicant. Why are they searching for someone else when they have someone who's been in the seat for 4 years. Who is going to complain if I was given some leeway and given the job?
I'm actually a Band 3, acting up into a Band 4 role. My Band 5 manager thought he would get to interview me but was disgusted to hear that two Band 9's and a Band 7 would be on the panel. Total overkill for a Band 4 appointment.
This was a "rule" when I worked for the Civil Service 20 years ago. IIRC it was something the Unions insisted on to stop Management giving the jobs to their favoured candidates (i.e. "jobs for the boys").I'm actually a Band 3, acting up into a Band 4 role. My Band 5 manager thought he would get to interview me but was disgusted to hear that two Band 9's and a Band 7 would be on the panel. Total overkill for a Band 4 appointment.
It was exceptionally frustrating to go through the charade of holding external interviews when the internal candidates knew
- the job
- the systems
- the processes
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff