Advertising a vacancy

[shoeshopper]

Would a sports club, run by a management commitee made up of members, need to advertise a vacancy for a sports coach, or could they just appoint who they want. A retainer would be paid for working during the winter months but otherwise they would be hired on a self-employed basis.

Thank you for any advice.

[SarEl]

Would a sports club, run by a management commitee made up of members, need to advertise a vacancy for a sports coach, or could they just appoint who they want. A retainer would be paid for working during the winter months but otherwise they would be hired on a self-employed basis.

Thank you for any advice.

 

Provided that you break no laws on discrimination, you can recruit in any way you wish - as can any employer.

[shoeshopper]

Thanks for prompt reply. So any employer can appoint whoever they want for a job without advertising the vacancy?

[SarEl]

In a word - yes. But you won't be employers - the person is self-employed so it will have to be a contract for service. But even so, you must take care that no discrimination (of a legal sort) takes place.

[shoeshopper]

Thanks. I understand the contract for service part. But what is discrimination of the 'legal sort'? Also, i'm interested now in general and always thought that job vacancies had to be advertised. Surely if they weren't employers could just give jobs to friends and family.

[SarEl]

Thanks. I understand the contract for service part. But what is discrimination of the 'legal sort'? Also, i'm interested now in general and always thought that job vacancies had to be advertised. Surely if they weren't employers could just give jobs to friends and family.

 

Ermm - you do know that employers can just give jobs to friends and family? Seriously! There is no law saying that employers have to advertise jobs at all. The only requirement is that you must recruit in such a way that you do not breach the laws on discrimination. So, for example, if your sports club has a diverse ethnic make-up, then it might be considered "odd" (shall we say!) if you only interviewed blond men (or even women!). that might give rise to a challenge that you had discriminated on the grounds of race. That doesn't mean such a challenge would succeed - but it could be made and it might succeed if you cannot show that you did not dsicriminate.

 

Employers generally advertsie and recruit along certain processes to demonstrate that they have been fair in their recruitment (whether or not they are is an entirely different matter).

 

It's an entirely differnt subject area - but the principle applies. I recall reading in the news a couple of months ago (and falling over laughing, I have to admit) at the BNP defence that their party is not racist, because anyone can join and they have people from ethnic minorties on the waiting list. I am still trying to get my head around the concept that politiical parties have waiting lists. But you perhaps see the point - not entirely credible as a defence, is it?

 

The point is not whether or not you are "fair" or "non-discriminatory" - but whether anyone says that you aren't. Somehow, I just cannot imagine a whole bunch of people from an ethic minority claiming that they desperately want to be members of the BNP. But they might just want employment, and if you are recruiting for any empliyment or service, it is sensible to ensure that your process cannot be challenged. In your circumstances, it's unlikely, but if you think it may happen, then you protect yourselves from it by making sure you are fair.

[shoeshopper]

I did know that employers do, frequently, go through a whole selection process only to employ who they wanted in the first place. That indeed makes it look fair when we all know that it isnt always the case.

 

The circumstances i am referring to involve no vacancy being advertised, only 1 person being considered and the person in question is the son of the Chairperson. Do you think that could be challenged? Would it be considered fair?

[SarEl]

I think you already know the answers. Could it be challenged - of course it could, anything can be. Would it be considered fair - not if challenged on legal grounds. Would any of that happen - probably not. But nepotism has other detriments. The first time that this young man falls out with someone / anyone, allegations are going to fly that he's only there as result of "dad" (probably true) etc., etc., etc. You know what it will be like. It won't do him any good, it won't do dad any good, and it won't do the club any good. I have seen "voluntary groups" like this tiorn apart over much less.

 

Why not do everyone a favour and cover your backs at the same time, by advertising? You don't have to go wild - advertise through the members (perhaps a notice on the board), maybe at the job centre (that's free), or even at a local university / college that does sports sciences if you have one. That way everything is above board and transparent, and you never know - you might get some surprising results! We are, after all, talking about self-emeployment here, and there might be people with different and complimentary skills coming forward that you could actually use!

 

One thing you should be aware of - you would need to check out insurances (to check your own liability for anything that went wrong during coaching), and that your coach is insured too. LIabaility for sporting injuries is a serious matter, and if someone is coaching they should be qualified to do so (where appropriate) and insured to do so.

[shoeshopper]

Thank you very much for your advice.

 

What you suggest is exactly what I would like to see happen for the good of everyone. Let's just hope that all parties concerned can agree to this to save major aggravation all round.

 

Thanks again.