Disability trumps merit?

Surfer

Surfer

Surfer

Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
11,179
Location
Glasgow
So i have this friend who is in this situation i thought hey this is a tad dodgy:

Person A and B both apply for the same job in the same company they both have worked there for say 8 years (new contracts so all staff reapplying). Person A gets a phone call from the boss saying that they must give the job to person B because of their disability (ie this shift is the only one they can do apparently as they have MS and require short shift patterns) Person A is a bit miffed as she will then be moved to another town on another shift entirely.

The point of the matter is that both A + B were supposed to interview for it and one gets it on merit but the fact that the boss (well a manager basically) phoned A on the downlow to basically say B will get it prior to the interview stage....seems a tad dodgy no?

I mean i know in an ideal world merit should have something to do with it no?

Is it worthwhile getting the union involved or acas?
 
Pretty sure companies need to bend over backwards to accommodate disabled staff these days. Everyone else plays second fiddle to that I'm afraid.
 
Ouch,

Surely if person A gets the job, person B can stay in their current position, so that argument of person B requiring the position is moot?
 
Jokester said:
Pretty sure companies need to bend over backwards to accommodate disabled staff these days. Everyone else plays second fiddle to that I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Yeah i get that and understand that but at the expense of other staff? I naively thought the company would create a custom shift pattern for person B instead of letting her have the position regardless of her capabilities. (person A is much better in the role, more capable and does x,y,z extra stuff whilst person b pretty much just wings it and imho uses her disability as a bit of a crutch)


Surely if person A gets the job, person B can stay in their current position, so that argument of person B requiring the position is moot?
Click to expand...

New shift patterns for everybody so technically nobody has a job (restructuring process) - all reapplying within the company. The job that A does now is actually the job that is up for grabs by both A + B. (Bs current job doesnt exist anymore)
 
Last edited:
Surfer said:
New shift patterns for everybody so technically nobody has a job (restructuring process) - all reapplying within the company. The job that A does now is actually the job that is up for grabs by both A + B. (Bs current job doesnt exist anymore)
Click to expand...


Would person A be worse off from the "restructuring"?

Could also use it as an excuse to demand more benefits/less work/more pay etc.
 
kindai said:
Would person A be worse off from the "restructuring"?

Could also use it as an excuse to demand more benefits/less work/more pay etc.
Click to expand...

Well change of location to another town so harder to get to and i guess rescheduling childcare/picking kids up from school and such (she has 2 kids). The company went to a great deal of trouble to put out the word (via meetings etc) that it would all be a fair process and that if 2 people went for the same job then an interview would happen and selection based on merit.

I guess she has just had a wake up to the realities of work politics. ce's la vie.
 
Surfer said:
Yeah i get that and understand that but at the expense of other staff?
Click to expand...
Pretty much yeah.

The average company will do the minimum to protect themselves, if it ended up the other way round but the disabled person couldn't travel to the other town to work, there could be a case for constructive dismissal.
 
Jokester said:
Pretty much yeah.

The average company will do the minimum to protect themselves, if it ended up the other way round but the disabled person couldn't travel to the other town to work, there could be a case for constructive dismissal.
Click to expand...

oh well that as they say is that! Thanks for the infos :D
 
Jokester said:
Pretty much yeah.

The average company will do the minimum to protect themselves, if it ended up the other way round but the disabled person couldn't travel to the other town to work, there could be a case for constructive dismissal.
Click to expand...


It could work the other way though also, person A could say the travel makes her position untenable and also have such a case...
 
If both are equally qualified for the role, then it would go to the disabled candidate due to the impact on a protected characteristics of not doing it.

Note equally qualified is not the same as the best person for the job used in a normal recruitment process.
 
kindai said:
And surely the same applies to the disabled person.

Being disabled isn't a free pass to "get what you want".
Click to expand...
Yes, but disabled people have specific rights that non-disabled don't have, eg if they have mobility problems, moving them to a worksite in a completely different town could quite easily be construed as constructive dismissal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom