Discrimination?

Morleystreet

Just wondering if people think the following is discrimination ?

A few years ago I worked as a contractor in a company ( lots of contractors working there). A number of permanent roles were advertised externally and any contractors could also apply. There were 4 jobs available in different areas of expertise. The job I went for was one I was doing day to day. I didn't get the job and that was fine.

Recently a senior person in the company got in contact with me to say they were not happy with the situation that had happened back then. Of the people who applied for the position I went for , I had come top during the interview panel assessment. When the 4 successful candidate names went up for formal signature by dept head, the dept head would not sign off on me. The reason apparently being that I had a brother working in company and his rule was that he wouldn't have 2 family members working in company. However another person who was successful had a wife who worked there.

Anyway there is email proof of this situation. It was a few years back and I'm elsewhere now but really annoyed at what I,ve been told.


My question is , would you consider that as discrimination?
I don't know whether or not to do anything about this but it is really annoying me.

Speedwell

I don't know if it would be considered discrimination against you (many companies have policies against hiring someone who has a relative in the company, especially if it would result in one reporting to the other, or another questionable situation), so much as it would be favoritism toward the other person. That is, the hiring manager who was responsible for hiring the guy whose wife worked there might be in trouble for violating company policy against nepotism, but not be in trouble for failing to hire you. It depends on written and/or customary company policy, I would guess. IANAL.

FortySeven

Speedwell wrote: »

I don't know if it would be considered discrimination against you (many companies have policies against hiring someone who has a relative in the company, especially if it would result in one reporting to the other, or another questionable situation), so much as it would be favoritism toward the other person. That is, the hiring manager who was responsible for hiring the guy whose wife worked there might be in trouble for violating company policy against nepotism, but not be in trouble for failing to hire you. It depends on written and/or customary company policy, I would guess. IANAL.

I anal? That's a bit forward speedwell.

I would be worried whoever told the op about this may have an axe to grind with the person who made this decision.

Irish_Elect_Eng

No this is not discrimination.

It is not uncommon to avoid hiring multiple members of a family for all sorts of reasons, but mainly to reduce different types of risk to the company. Or indeed to reduce risk to the employees, as hard as it is to let one person go, letting both earners in a family go is very hard indeed. Most companies would have a policy in relation to relatives working together if they do hire them, not permitting relatives or spouses to have reporting relationships between then (Employee-manager, etc).

In relation to the couple working there, were they a couple when they started working there? One exception to that has to be made for these sorts of policies/preferences is if people get together post-hire, as you cannot let people go just because they start dating and are then in breach of a policy. I have heard of couples being separated to different departments though..

Speedwell

FortySeven wrote: »

I anal? That's a bit forward speedwell.

I would be worried whoever told the op about this may have an axe to grind with the person who made this decision.

Cheeky But I agree with your second paragraph; there is clearly some reason why the insider reached out, even if there is no way to know what that reason was. The OP should be careful not to compromise their industry standing and reputation, especially if they did not suffer hardship from the decision.

TheChizler

It's dictionary discrimination, as in you were treated less preferably because of some external factor you have no control over rather than based on your individual merit, but it's not one of the 7 illegal grounds for discrimination, so unless they breached some company policy they did nothing wrong.

_Brian

No matter, in Ireland discrimination is really only recognised under one of the nine sacred grounds. Anything outside those and you'd have some serious trouble winning a case.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_workplace.html

Morleystreet

Thanks for views. Actually feel a bit better about it know. At the time i was ok with it all but when this person recently brought up the facts, just annoyed me that if I was top of scoring on merit etc. Suppose they really should have been upfront on any policy beforehand rather than putting me through interviews and all the prep that takes etc.

The person who brought it up said they had felt bad about situation, felt it unfair at the time and as they were retiring soon, wanted to get it off their chest now. At least that's what they've said to me anyway.

It does seem strange that it's ok legally though to have a policy like that. For example, I'm sure lots of people meet their future partners in workplace etc.

Thanks for feedback all.

CruelCoin

Not discrimination.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state when it comes to family. If you have a problem with one family member, then you will by and large also have an issue with the other family members.

It's odd and can seem unfair, but cutting down on possible HR issues by a policy like this is perfectly legitimate i reckon.