Given false reason for not getting the job

endainoz

Hello folks hope I have the right forum here for this. So I work seasonaly at famous tourist attraction and recently an internal position came up their offices and I applied for it as the hours would suit better and I'd have Sundays off. Anyway me and another girl both got interviewed for it and she was offered the job over me. I don't have any issue with that, but what I do have an issue with is how I was given the reason that they had more experience than me so they got the position. That is a complete lie as I have far more expierence and I don't see it as a legitimate reason.

Unsatisfied with the response, I got on to the head of HR who also was the one who made the decision asking for an explanation and was given nothing. All my work colligues say I shouldn't be surprised as he is grossly incompetent and this sort of thing happens all the time.

What I'd like to know is if there's anything else I can do to take this farther? I definitely have no hard feelings towards the person who got the job, but I've been fed lies as the reason and I don't think it should be allowed.

Dial Hard

Unless you were discriminated against on the grounds of one of the "big 9" and can prove it, then no, you have no recourse to take it further.

If I were you I would definitely just move on with my life, no doubt about it

Maybe the other candidate had more “relevant” experience. How do you know what experience the other person has?

endainoz

Fair enough guys, thanks for the responses. The other person does not have any other relevant experience more than me, but whatever it was only a short fixed term contract so I suppose it's not worth it. Management in the place are going to be found out white soon. Union involved and talks of strike etc. You may see it on the news in a few months! But obviously I won't be saying the name of the company.

Mrs OBumble

You will never be given the true reason why you did not get any job, and you are not entitled to be given any reason.

Gerry T

Are you saying you have the union involved

A strike because you didn’t get a job?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

endainoz

Apologies guys if that was misinterpreted, yes the union issue is completely unrelated to my own situation

Avatar MIA

endainoz wrote: »

That is a complete lie as I have far more expierence and I don't see it as a legitimate reason.

Unless ye have done the exact same job where you work AND the exact same jobs in previous jobs the other girl may have had then you really don't know that. So, it might be more plausible than you think.

And it's a seasonal job, wouldn't be making too big a deal of it with the head of HR or your career might fall off a cliff.

Yawns

Could be the other person lied and claimed to have more experience in another job and the interviewer believed her. That or the other girl simply performed better in her interview and sold herself more.

endainoz

The reason given was with regard to experience in the current company, yes we were in the same position. I trained the person myself last year when they started. If I was given a simple reason like they did a better interview than me, it would have been fine. I wasn't. I was told what swung it for this person was that they had more experience than me in the current role, which was a lie. Was not reffering to previous jobs either of us had. I was always under the impression that I was entitled to a legitimate reason to not get a position. It seems that's not the case.

Glass fused light

endainoz wrote: »

The reason given was with regard to experience in the current company, yes we were in the same position. I trained the person myself last year when they started. If I was given a simple reason like they did a better interview than me, it would have been fine. I wasn't. I was told what swung it for this person was that they had more experience than me in the current role, which was a lie. Was not reffering to previous jobs either of us had. I was always under the impression that I was entitled to a legitimate reason to not get a position. It seems that's not the case.

You are only entitled to be informed that you were not sucessful. One of the reasons a good interviewer won't give a reason to avoid this situation.

Experience is not just length of service, it's being able to demonstrate specific examples of when the candidate satisfies the job criteria and satisfied the manager that it demonstrates they are a good team fit. Even if you both have the exact same experience a legitimate reason is that the manager would enjoy working with the other person more than you because they are a better fit.

This is why you applied: "I applied for it as the hours would suit better and I'd have Sundays off" she may have applied to grow in the role and expand her experience. That would be all she needed to swinging it in her favour.

CeilingFly

They said reason is experience just to give a generic reason. Real reason is you may be regarded as "troublesome" with an attitude and someone they don't want in that position.

That's just what your posts are reading.

I had similar situation a couple of years ago. One applicant certainly had more actual experience but had a poor attitude, but the other applicant, whilst much less had more potential and hadn't the us and them attitude of the more experienced person (who has since left)

endainoz

Well I don't think it's fair to accuse someone of being troublesome or have a bad attitude based on a couple of posts on boards.ie but feel free to judge if you'd like. The same person who got the job was actually shipped off to this position to get them out of the current department due to others having issues with them which seems to be the actual reason.

I've always had good assessments from management previously but anyways the question was to see if I was actually entitled to a reason which I am not so that's fair enough. I still don't like to be judged by a person who has no idea about me all the same. I can see how possibly a person would come to the conclusion due to the tone of the messages but I just wanted to see where I stood legally, that's all. As I said before have absolutely no ill will to the person who got the job, was just unsatisfied with the reason.

CeilingFly

I'm not saying you are troublesome, I'm saying that a generic reason can be used to hide a true reason.

An example is if you had a negative attitude to management as you stated and if this is known, it forms part of the process whether you like it or not. Social media posts also form part of the process too especially for new hires.

Experience is only one part.

CeilingFly

endainoz wrote: »

Management in the place are going to be found out white soon. Union involved and talks of strike etc.

Its only one post, but it says a lot and may tell you the real reason for being unsuccessful

splinter65

CeilingFly wrote: »

They said reason is experience just to give a generic reason. Real reason is you may be regarded as "troublesome" with an attitude and someone they don't want in that position.

That's just what your posts are reading.

I had similar situation a couple of years ago. One applicant certainly had more actual experience but had a poor attitude, but the other applicant, whilst much less had more potential and hadn't the us and them attitude of the more experienced person (who has since left)

This^^^^.
You went for a position, you didn’t get it, you’re disappointed and now your disgruntled and making a fuss.
You don’t have any entitlement to the job nor to any explanation as to why you didn’t get the job and now you have been given an explanation your seeking to capitalise on the managers foolishness in giving you an explanation to escalate your perceived injustice.
If it’s such a terrible place to work then you need to look for a job somewhere else.
Seriously. Employees need to learn to draw a line between their rights and the employers.

endainoz

I asked a question, it was answered in the second and third post. There is really no need to keep hitting the point home. Please take your condacending comments elsewhere, for the third and final time I thought I was entitled to a reason and I'm not so that's it.

coylemj

Having the entitlement to get a reason for being passed over for promotion doesn't mean that they will give you the actual reason. The person who made the decision could have had several large hints dropped to them that the organisation needed more females in senior positions so you could have been the victim of 'reverse' (negative to you) discrimination. Which of course they will never admit to because it involves discrimination based on gender which is illegal.

CeilingFly

Yes, you got your answer in the 3rd post, but then you take a swipe at management - therein is probably the real reason for not getting the position.

You might not like it, but sometimes its good to have these things pointed out to you.

An interview is only part of an overall assessment for a position.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Playing devils advocate here but maybe the other person is a nicer person, is more friendly and gets on with the public/clients better?

Experience isn’t always a vital qualification and it might be more sensitive to say the other person has more experience than saying they simply don’t like your manner or attitude etc etc

givyjoe

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yes, you got your answer in the 3rd post, but then you take a swipe at management - therein is probably the real reason for not getting the position.

You might not like it, but sometimes its good to have these things pointed out to you.

An interview is only part of an overall assessment for a position.

Jesus, why do some people always feel the need to take a dig at the op in these scenarios. Of course there disgruntled, they lost out to a person they trained themselves!

CeilingFly

givyjoe wrote: »

Jesus, why do some people always feel the need to take a dig at the op in these scenarios. Of course there disgruntled, they lost out to a person they trained themselves!

The op made the comments about management and this attitude may well be known, hence its probably the real reason for not getting the position.

Its not a dig, its pointing out a very plausible reason - experience is not the only requirement in a position.

Addle

endainoz wrote: »

The same person who got the job was actually shipped off to this position to get them out of the current department due to others having issues with them which seems to be the actual reason.

If you knew this, what sort of answer did you expect when you asked why?

jimmycrackcorm

OP, is this the exact same job as you're doing now as I read that your op Asad being an office position instead.

In which case experience means relevant to that role and not what you are doing now or that you think the position should be awarded based on time served.

Sleeper12

Maybe they thought they saving your feelings by saying the other had more experience.

Let it go & move on

Pat Mustard

endainoz wrote: »

Fair enough guys, thanks for the responses. The other person does not have any other relevant experience more than me, but whatever it was only a short fixed term contract so I suppose it's not worth it. Management in the place are going to be found out white soon. Union involved and talks of strike etc. You may see it on the news in a few months! But obviously I won't be saying the name of the company.

Sometimes, employers have the potential to expose themselves to liability in these types of situations. For instance, if there were two candidates and if one of them was discriminated against under the law, then the employer would seek to avoid litigation. To play it safe, lawyers often advise employers to not give any reason why one candidate was hired over another. The reason that you are not being given the correct answer may be because the employers think that they are protecting themselves by refusing to divulge that information to you.