Internal Recruitment Processes

[styrofoampanda]

Good evening everyone,

 

I'm having a small trouble with work at the moment, I applied for a managers position internally and was told that I have an outstanding absence trigger.

 

An absence trigger is where I have had 3 occasions of sickness within 3 months and I can not have a further sick day within the following 6 months.

 

What my issue is here is that the recruitment policy at the time I applied only advised "Aspects which may be taken into consideration are attendance, timekeeping and performance ". I appear to have kicked up a fuss and now the policy has been changed to "All lateness and absence triggers must have been passed before applying for an internal role".

 

The footer at the bottom of both documents both say Version 2.0 and are dated March 2014. I belive this is the same to deliberately mislead anyone going into the document.

 

Please can you let me know your thoughts.

 

Thank you

[styrofoampanda]

I should elaborate that my trigger will have completed within the next two weeks.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

The forum guys should be along later, please bear with us until they're able to get here.

 

My best, HB

[Sidewinder]

I think that whichever way the policy is written could equally apply to your situation.

 

Aspects which may be taken into consideration are attendance, timekeeping and performance[/Quote]

 

They may well state that they took your absence record into consideration and dismissed your application on that basis, and having asked for clarification on that it looks as though they have clarified and strengthened that particular clause. You could I suppose counter that if the circumstances were being considered thoroughly, that with only two weeks left before the trigger was cancelled the decision to bar you from applying was unduly harsh.

 

A bit underhand and certainly unfortunate, but not necessarily unlawful. May be worth getting copies of both pre and post amendment and raise a grievance that a clause which forms part of the contract appears to have been changed without being notified, and that the date has been left unchanged to make the amendment appear less recent than it actually was. The downside of course will be that this is unlikely to get you the promotion and may well scupper chances in future.

 

It seems a bit petty to prevent you applying for promotion just on that basis.....are you sure there weren't any other factors and the absence record was just a convenient excuse?

[stevemLS]

In what way is the recruitment policy incorporated in the contract of employment?

 

Of course the employer can change their recruitment policy should they so wish and may well have done so as a consequence of the initial issue raised by OP.

 

I would suspect the version number and operative date remaining unchanged is simply someone forgetting to change it. Cock up is far more common than conspiracy.

[Sidewinder]

In what way is the recruitment policy incorporated in the contract of employment?

 

I may have jumped the gun but terms like this are often found in the Employee Handbook, in which case they would form part of the T&Cs of the contract

 

Naturally in this case it may be true that these are conditions which are issued to candidates applying for internal vacancies, however the fact that the OP had ready access to the 'original version' made me suspect that the clause was drawn from some form of handbook.

[stevemLS]

My understanding is that it is not as simple as saying if it is in the handbook it is incorporated into the contract, it is contextual.

 

For example, one of my clients has a weighty tome called "The Rough Guide", which contains everything from the annual leave policy (which would be incorporated) to the location of nearby sandwich shops and catering facilities in relation to the main offices (which obviously would not).

 

And, of course, employers can and do revise policies although I agree they would need to draw attention to revisions.

 

That is the advice I have given for the last 10 or more years, hope I haven't got it wrong all that time!

[styrofoampanda]

I have got copies of both the policy before and after the change.

 

I have recently joined the top company within our group umbrella so I truly couldn't tell you guy what my contract says as I have yet to receive it.

 

We have an employee handbook but each part is a separate document on the intranet. Which is where I have gotten my Information from so far.

 

I am due to have a meeting with my manager today in regards to this as quite a few managers have become involved with this. I couldn't tell you if they are just using my trigger as an excuse but I am don't want to take this decision lying down.

[becky2585]

My understanding is that it is not as simple as saying if it is in the handbook it is incorporated into the contract, it is contextual.

 

For example, one of my clients has a weighty tome called "The Rough Guide", which contains everything from the annual leave policy (which would be incorporated) to the location of nearby sandwich shops and catering facilities in relation to the main offices (which obviously would not).

 

And, of course, employers can and do revise policies although I agree they would need to draw attention to revisions.

 

That is the advice I have given for the last 10 or more years, hope I haven't got it wrong all that time!

 

There would be very little point in having a handbook if there wasn't at least an argument that it forms part of the T&C's, though. It would be non sensical for an employer to take the time to draft policies that it endeavours to follow and then ignore them completely context is important, though - for example an ET is much more likely to find that an enhanced redundancy policy is contractual as it conveys such a significant benefit on the employee. Conversely, an employee would be unable to mount a wrongful dismissal claim based on a lack of disciplinary procedure if the employers policy did not state it was contractual in circumstances where they were dismissed without qualifying length of service.

 

I suppose the key difference is that a breach of contract claim is unlikely to arise as a result of the staff handbook; but it would be taken into account in the wider picture, for example numerous breaches of internal policy to support a constructive dismissal claim.

[stevemLS]

There would be very little point in having a handbook if there wasn't at least an argument that it forms part of the T&C's, though. It would be non sensical for an employer to take the time to draft policies that it endeavours to follow and then ignore them completely context is important, though - for example an ET is much more likely to find that an enhanced redundancy policy is contractual as it conveys such a significant benefit on the employee. Conversely, an employee would be unable to mount a wrongful dismissal claim based on a lack of disciplinary procedure if the employers policy did not state it was contractual in circumstances where they were dismissed without qualifying length of service.

 

I suppose the key difference is that a breach of contract claim is unlikely to arise as a result of the staff handbook; but it would be taken into account in the wider picture, for example numerous breaches of internal policy to support a constructive dismissal claim.

 

I agree.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it does not automatically follow that everything in any handbook confers contractual rights. By your last paragraph, i think you are agreeing with me.

 

In any event, in this particular instance, there would not appear to be any breach in either the original or the clarified version.

[becky2585]

I agree.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it does not automatically follow that everything in any handbook confers contractual rights. By your last paragraph, i think you are agreeing with me.

 

I was indeed - I just tend to ramble on occasion