Manpower/reed/Hayes - my various employment woes

[Purpleflowers 2]

I applied for a position at a company which had advertised for a large a number of vacancies for the same positions over 50 positions were available (i was told at the role play session that they had around 50 plus positions and they had to invite around 100 or 200 people who were shortlisted for the role play and interview part of the process)

 

i applied online my application was accepted, i was then asked to complete a number of online tests which i passed, after a few days I was sent an email asking me to have a telephone interview which i also passed (was told i passed after a few days of having the phone interview)

 

I was then asked to attend an assessment day, which consisted of a team exercise to see how we all got on in the team, this was then followed by an interview again which lasted around 20 mins and was then followed up by a telephone role play exercise.

 

i was told that i would be told in about 2 weeks, someone from hr sent me an email telling me she was sorry that it was taking this long to come to a decision or something, don't have the email now, then i was sent a letter which i will try to find and also an email which states the reason for not being given the job as follows -

 

"With regards to the xyz role, we were recruiting for a while for a number of positions, however the number of people required was reduced and as such those roles were withdrawn. I hope this clarifies the situation for you."

 

that does not clarify anything at all and smells of a complete and utter cover up

 

the company had over 100 people that they were asking to come to the assessment days at the company and partake in the tasks i mentioned above, then these would be shortlisted, i am of mixed race and i feel that the reason given above by the company is not a valid reason at all, it is impossible the company would simply withdraw all the roles as in their explanation above!

 

why would the company spend all the time, effort and money in doing all the recruitemet procedure to simply turn around and say

 

""With regards to the xyz role, we were recruiting for a while for a number of positions, however the number of people required was reduced and as such those roles were withdrawn. I hope this clarifies the situation for you.""

 

I think this is a weak and feeble excuse, they have not given me a real reason, i find it very hard to believe the company would spend all the time and effort in conducting the application form process, then shortlisting that, then asking me to take online tests and short listing that, then asking me to have a phone interview, then shortlisting that, then asking me to come to an assessmement with lots of other people and doing team exercise , followed by an interview, followed by a telephone role play - the same process for over 100 other people, so you see their excuse for withdrawing roles simply does not add up, why go to all the expense and hassle of doing what i have described above?

 

where do i stand in regards to seeking further clarification and possible claim for discrimination, the company must be making it up they withdrew all the positions, simply not possible.

 

i have read that you can claim at employment for job positions that have been refused if you can show discrimination or the company has acted wrongly, which i believe has happened in this case, in my assessment day there was only 1 other non white caucasion applicant - i think there was around 14 or 20 people that day with me

 

[papasmurf1cx]

Before starting any ET claim I would be inclined to send the employer a questionnaire under the Equality Act 2010. I think you will find the link here http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/information-for-advisers/taking-discrimination-cases/

 

 

The point of the questionnaire is to enable you to make a judgement that a discrimination has taken place. The employer should answer the questions but often they will merely ignore them. If they do that you have no choice other than to drop the case or issue proceedings. These issues can get messy so beware.

 

The additional questions you should ask probably should be around statistical information eg how many people were employed after the process was finished; how many black people were hired; how many mixed race were employed; what other races were employed; what was the ethnic make up of those employed. In addition you should ask other questions about the racial make up of ALL employees in their company as there may be a culture generally throughout the company of racial discrimination even if it is unintended racism. You could also ask for the qualifications of those that were hired and so you can compare them to your own.

 

You get the idea it is about comparing you to those that were employed and indeed those employed generally as indirfect discrimination could also be proved.

 

If they ignore you and your questions and you issue proceedings eventually they will have to disclose the information in the disclosure phase. Ensure the information is anonymise ie you don't ask for information that will identify any individual.

[Purpleflowers 2]

papasmurf1cx, i asked the employer can i have feedback as I have not heard back from them since I applied for the job, I was sent an email with the following response """With regards to the xyz role, we were recruiting for a while for a number of positions, however the number of people required was reduced and as such those roles were withdrawn. I hope this clarifies the situation for you.""

 

In essence the employer is now claiming in the statement above the roles have been reduced ad roles withdrawn but why on earth go through the whole process of recruitment in the first place, the company should have identified the roles were not required in the first place instead of asking over 100 people to go through the whole process of applying, taking the online tests, phone interviews, attending the assessment day..............and so forth

 

You said ask for

 

statistical information eg how many people were employed after the process was finished;

how many black people were hired;

how many mixed race were employed;

what other races were employed;

what was the ethnic make up of those employed.

 

I cant ask these questions because the company is saying """With regards to the xyz role, we were recruiting for a while for a number of positions, however the number of people required was reduced and as such those roles were withdrawn. I hope this clarifies the situation for you.""

 

In other words they are trying to say not a single person from over 100 people was given any of the roles they applied for - reason being the statement above

Do you see the difficulty now in proving discrimination?

 

I have received another email telling me "I have looked into this for you, in the case of the xyz position, a letter was sent to you informing you that unfortunately, due to unforseen circumstances, the role has been withdrawn. This is no reflection on you or how you did at the assessment centre, it is just that the compnay is no longer recruiting for these positions due to a change in our circumstances." - they was over 70 positions advertised and now they claim they are no longer recruitming, this is a cover up

 

Do you see the employer is trying to cover up something and the difficulty in proving it, I need

 

Would you have any questions that I could email the employer and ask them so they would not realise where all the questions are leading to, I need evidence from the company if this is to go to employment tribunal

[Nystagmite]

If there has been discrimination, (I don't think there has been) you will have to somehow prove it.

[Purpleflowers 2]

how can the employer say they have withdrawn about 70 positions by just saying

 

"With regards to the xyz role, we were recruiting for a while for a number of positions, however the number of people required was reduced and as such those roles were withdrawn. I hope this clarifies the situation for you."

 

and

 

"I have looked into this for you, in the case of the xyz position, a letter was sent to you informing you that unfortunately, due to unforseen circumstances, the role has been withdrawn. This is no reflection on you or how you did at the assessment centre, it is just that the compnay is no longer recruiting for these positions due to a change in our circumstances"

 

How can i prove the employer is making all this up, there is no way on earth nobody was given a position or the roles were withdrawn, its just not possible

 

[papasmurf1cx]

Layla I agree with Nystagmite that thus far there is no discrimination. That does not mean there is none and as you say it is being covered up.

 

However you also ask how you can get that evidence. I told you, you have to write to them on a discrimination questionnaire. I even gave you the link to search for it on the EHRC site. You have to realise that the company will not make this easy for you. If you cannot see to searching for and writing out the questions as I have indicated that you should do, I suggest that you may have to consider if this is worth the time and effort that is needed to persue a racial Discrimination case. Seriously.... this could make you ill and indeed if there is no discrimination then you could be at risk of costs for taking a case on without evidence.

 

Even if you did get the evidence... you have to ask yourself what kind of compensation you may receive. I doubt this would be much, but then again, what do I know !!

 

What is clear however is that merely repeating the same facts will not change anything, so please stop repeating the same facts. If the thread becomes long and complicated, as some do, then it is helpful to summarise what current positions are... but we a long way from that.

[Purpleflowers 2]

alright i see what i should do now, i will go and see cab after xmas to get some help with the questionnaire questions its not about the compensation but about the companies response it just does not make any sense and doesnt stand up, hardest part is going to prove discrimination which is going to be difficult

[Space Cadet uk]

I fear some people are quick to pull the race card, when actually no racist intent existed at all.

[Sidewinder]

I fear some people are quick to pull the race card, when actually no racist intent existed at all.

 

Be careful where you go with that one. The OP obviously has genuine concerns that race may have played a part, but FWIW I tend to agree with the comments above. This is going to be a nightmare to prove, and any questionnaire will be extremely obvious in it's intent and will put them on guard straight away. Vacancies do get withdrawn, even on the scale mentioned here, and it isn't uncommon for an organisation to interview this number of people to an advance stage to then only select a few - inevitably in those circumstances there would be a cross section of sexes, ages, ethnic backgrounds, which is a vast distance from proving discrimination. How likely is it that the organisation would admit (even if it were the case) that they only selected a number of white/heterosexual/under 25s/Christian candidates to offer employment to?

 

Hard enough to prove discrimination where there are only a handful of candidates and the best qualified/able did not get the job offer - with 200 or so candidates I feel you may be on a hiding to nothing sadly.

[daggersedge]

I fear some people are quick to pull the race card, when actually no racist intent existed at all.

 

I agree. I have had, in the past, interviews that seemed promising up until the company reorganised itself and reorganised the positions out of existence. I remember one job where I had obtained provisional acceptance of the position, only to find, at the last minute, and after I had turned down another job, that the company had been taken over and the new owners were reorganising everything, and, as a consequence, the job no longer existed. The only real difference between the OP's situation and mine is that I am white so I couldn't conjure up a race card. I just took it on the chin and started looking for a job again.

[rebel11]

To be honest, you just need to look at the economy, companies who have planned to expand are deciding to put expansion on hold because there are tough times ahead. I would personally focus your energy and efforts on seeking employment. Just look at it this way, it's their loss and will be some elses gain.

[Maceo]

Layla - Even if you decide not to do anything else in the end, I'd definitely go through with the questionnaire.

 

If there was racism there in the decision then they need to know that it's been picked up on and they haven't got away free without any questions. Might make them less likely to do it next time.

 

Good luck with whatever you decide, anyway. From experience I know that racism is often very hard to call. These days not much of it is overt, in your face and easily provable. Is it a coincidence that you didn't get the job or is there more to it? One is very aware and careful of being accused of 'playing the race card', but at the same time foolish discrimination and prejudice is extremely hard to just put up with.

[becky2585]

Sorry, but I dont see how their rejection of you was racially motivated, and even if it was, how would you be able to prove it?

 

With the number of unemployed people at present, an employer can choose to be picky. They don't even have to speak to you to let you know you weren't successful and with around 100 people applying for every post, it wouldn't be practical to do so anyway. Of those 100, how many are black, gay, or disabled? Would everyone falling into those categories put it down to discrimination if they were unsuccessful?

 

Im sorry and I dont mean to sound harsh... But the best advice I can give is put it down to experience. You could ask them for feedback on your application and interview so you improve next time. Rejection in this climate is unforunately very common - all you can do is take it on the chin and hope the next company offer you the job. Good luck!

[Purpleflowers 2]

There is a company that has over 90% white staff despite being surrounded by a very big ethnic population, the company appears to be discrminating on grounds of race by having an overwhelming white employees percentage, despite the local ethinic population being more than able/qualified to do the job

 

is this discrimanting?

 

they have the odd coloured/ethic employee to just make up the numbers to show they employee people of other colours, but this does not show why there is over 90% white staff

 

i think the company may be employing staff based on grounds of race, no other reason for it

[benny1970]

Hello

 

I think you have answered your own question 10% are ethic so my views are they are not discriminating. Remember the best person for a job is based on qualification and exp. and not ethic origin. It also depends on how well they do in the interview. People who have good qualification and exp. sometimes are not very good in interviews.

[becky2585]

It's more likely to be discriminatory if there are no ethnic minority employees, so I don't think it could be proved that they were discriminating against people, even if in reality, perhaps they were. There are provisions which allow employers to higher a higher percentage of minority groups, but it doesn't impose an obligation on them to do so.

[papasmurf1cx]

This is not a simple matter. The company may be large enough to have other facilities and locations and may be able to prove that their ethnic cross section of employees across all locations and all employees is proportionate to the national demographics.

 

However for the one location you talk about in your post that may be slightly skewed and thus appear to be discriminatory. Even if there is not a direct correlation between appointment and race there could be an INDIRECT degree of discrimination but again this would have to be proved by factual hiring and firing data and also the demographics of the type of jobs being offered and appointments made.

 

Can you tell us more about the company, size, location type of business.

 

Did you apply for a job and were turned down?

[electricsilver]

I live in a community which is 92% white and 8% minority.

Yet the largest (and one of the fewest) employers in the area employs 36% minority.

No particular skill-set is required.

DO I HAVE GROUNDS TO COMPLAIN ALSO.

No I do not. Yet this is not proportionate to the local demographics.

Am I to be ridiculed and tarnished as a bigot for even stating this?

[papasmurf1cx]

Depends on whether you have been turned down for a job. Have you?

 

Do you really want to turn this thread into a discussion over politically correctness or otherwise. Personally I thought I was trying to answer a question the OP had over the problem quoted.

 

You very well may point out the imbalance over the employment issue and perhaps this should be an issue you raise locally. It is high time we recognise that a mature discussion over these issues SHOULD be aired without fear of being tarnished a bigot.

[electricsilver]

they have the odd coloured/ethic employee to just make up the numbers to show they employee people of other colours, but this does not show why there is over 90% white staff

 

i think the company may be employing staff based on grounds of race, no other reason for it

 

I am not turning this thread into a discussion over politically correctness or otherwise.

This was achieved by the OP within her statment.

I am merely stating fact, and refuse to be frightened of doing so.

Your initial reply contained logic, legality and a moral understanding of the original "problem".

This - I have respect for. I do however, suggest that the OP's thread is based on something a little less desireable.

[papasmurf1cx]

Perhaps the Layla could enlighten us as to why there is a problem and give us further details to further this discussion. I would say though that discrimination problems are never straight forward and employers do not like being accused of it whatever the type of discrimination. They particularly do not like being accused of victimisation as this invariably directs the discrimination to individuals and they are mostly the senior managers who have to sort out the practices that juniors have done. The explicit use of Compromise Agreements shows the extent of discrimination by employers as they want to hide their unlawful actions.

 

The worst racial discrimination I have seen was a father of a murder victim (barbados) say discriminatory remarks about the perpetrator (Jamaican). It shocked me as you don't expect black on black discrimination. As I say complicated.

[Blueboy666]

One thing that can always be used that will have an employer thinking is the Equality Act.

 

Ask your employer through your trade union if you have one to do an Equality Audit, this will clearly highlight if there is any forms of discrimination, it will establish the true percentage of the whole workforce, and other issues.

[stuart_coogh]

you suspect that you may not be invited for job interviews because of your African sounding name, even though you are in fact a British national. This is a common problem, especially with people with 'Islamic' sounding names.

 

The equalities law makes it an offence to treat people less favourably on racial grounds, even if the discriminator makes a mistake about the ethnicity of the victim (known as 'perception discrimination') or discriminates against a person because she is married to a person of ethnicity (known as 'associative discrimination'). Therefore, if you believe that you are not getting job interviews because of these reasons, you may well have a race discrimination claim as a job seeker against the company.

 

 

As a test, you may want to consider sending a CV or job application form, with a British sounding name (but different address) to the same company for the same job, but with the same qualifications and skills, and see what happens. This might be evidence of a difference of treatment.

[Sidewinder]

you suspect that you may not be invited for job interviews because of your African sounding name, even though you are in fact a British national.

 

I think I must have missed that bit even though I have re-read the thread now several times

[stuart_coogh]

you should apply for every single vacancy in your chosen area, under both a english woman’s name and your own Asian/african name. Now if the english name is given an interview and your own african/asian name is not, albeit that the CVs demonste similar experience and qualifications. this would show clearly you being discriminated against and you should claim for compensation, because this happens each and every day up and down the country, deny it what they may, it happens, sad but true, so try this method to apply for jobs and then claim against the companies if the english sounding name is invited for interview and your genuine name is not - clear discrimination if both cvs are virtually identical - the discrimination is then not on skills/experience but on your race/name