My girlfriend works for probation and has done for over 4 years in a clerical role. Her department was scheduled to be disbanded and she was told she would be placed somewhere else. However in this time of uncertainty - She applied for a position within the drugs team as a data analyst which is still part of probation but another area. The position was advertised with its starting salary at £19'909 and stated it was "pay award pending" and the post is dependant on annual funding - Its the usual stuff they write I believe in all positions. This would have been a significant increase in her salary from about £17k. Shes fully qualified for it with a degree in computer science and background in working in similar environments and also experience of probation itself. She went through the interview process and was told she was successful and she would start on 2nd february. I feel someone high up knew she her department was going to be disbanded and maybe cut her some slack over others - but in all honesty she was probably one of the best candidates anyways. She recieved a letter of offer yesterday saying her pay and holiday entitlement will remain the same however - no mention of an increase or new pay. Its the weekend right now so she cant findout if this is a mistake or not or whether they are trying to basically cheat her out of the increase now? Shes quite upset as she finally felt it was the break she needed in life and is worried, come monday when she phones they will make some excuse up to back out of the advertised pay. Are they allowed to do that? Having gone through the assessment and interview - back out like that? there was never any mention of the pay being decreased either throughout the process. Also im concerned they may use the adverts "pay award pending" or "annual funding" as a reason - but surely they cant do that I mean? If she hadnt applied an an external candidate gained the job, I cant imagine them being paid less now from what was advertised surely? Maybe its a simple mistake but its quite a big one really that makes me fear maybe it isnt. I have told her to say she applied for the role dependant on what was advertised and as a step up - not across in her career and that she wouldnt have applied if she knew her pay would remain the same. I have told her to findout monday and speak to them and put up a fight if they do try that. Also think about speaking to her union about the situation if it escalates. What are your views bit-tech? some help would be great as I dont really want to see her upset about this... anyone have experience of this happening and how it went down? or any advice?
I've seen stuff like that all the time, it's a shame but she needs to find out why the increase/new pay hasn't been applied to her on Monday when the offices open up. Did the advert have any small print? If she still has a copy and it's the same job title & responsibilities of the job she has been offered then she has a strong leg to stand on.
Theres no small print on it. It seemed like a standard advert, heres the salary section copied and pasted: INFORMATION ANALYST (37 hours per week) Starting Salary: £19,909 (pay award pending) Criminal Justice Drug Team, This post is dependent on annual funding We still have the original advert and I have emailed it to her at work to use as a reference if she needs. The job itself is the same as advertised with the same responsibilities.
unfortunately I very much doubt a job advert can constitute as a contract. They can offer whatever they please on the actual contract though.
Yeah, the bit where it says the "POST is dependant" is the bit that they'll use, they'll say their annual budget this year is significantly lower then they were expecting.
as long as she has a job and gets as much as she got before... do you have the contract that she signed?
They've made her a job offer; she can ask to discuss the salary aspect before agreeing. She should also look long-term, are there future advantages in this move? Just because she applied for the job it doesn't mean she has to take it, especially given the changed conditions.
Thats the thing - The letter she has been sent is the actual agreement contract with her expected to sign to acknowledge her acceptence. Because shes internal - the job spec was already sent out to everyone internally and externally via the local paper. She applied as an internal applicant and was successful - they simply sent her a letter asking her to sign to move over which says her salary will remain the same now despite it being advertised at a higher amount. She hasnt signed anything - its all been verbal - her passing the interview and being told her new start date by her soon to be new boss. But its not the boss thats done this, its HR who may be fiddling with the salary. I cant believe they didnt budget for it because they cant really just change the salary last minute like that - its really bad so either its a mistake or they are trying to pull one over her since her departments about to be disbanded and they think they can get away with it.
I think that she should call the HR person that interviewed her and ask about it. If the 19k isn't available now, ask them if there could be a clause added to the contract to make sure that within X months or years that her salary is increased to the proposed value on the page.
IANAL and certainly not an English one, but generally speaking verbal agreements are non-binding. So long as she doesn't sign off on anything until this is sorted out (either by increasing the pay upfront, or something in the contract about it going up by £X after Y days) I don't think there should be any issues on her end. Of course, there may be opportunities in the new position beyond just a potential pay increase - so keep that in mind when advising her to make a decision.
If you look at the minimum wage laws verbal contracts are counted as binding legal contracts - this may be the same.
the pay in a job ad is never an agreement, or a guarantee. it is just a starting point for negotiations. they're likely just testing her to see how low they can get away with. if she kicks up a fuss i'm sure she can get at least as much as is advertised.
If she is was offered a new job, she is entitled (as a minimum) as to that specified in the advertisements. Providing that nothing else was discussed or agreed at any other time. If she is getting transferred with the organisation, then her T&C's may well remain the same. However, if she applied to an advert and received an invitation to interview, and subsequently passed that interview and was selected in preference to other candidates (internal or external), the it quite clearly wasn't a transfer. The organisation is presumably trying to claim that this is a transfer because she was in a ring-fenced role facing redundancy. If they offered her a series of roles to look at (including this one), this would be fair enough, but since she found this advertised vacancy herself, I don't think they can argue that. She should be treated as if she were an external candidate. Disclaimer - it depends if this roles was ring-fenced for internal staff facing redundancy, or whether is was advertised externally. She shouldn't sign the contract. She should raise a query with HR, and at the same time consult her union. If she is not in the union, why not? In this case, speak to ACAS and/or the CAB. IANAL, so you'll probably find that there is some get-out-of-jail clause in redundancy law, but that's why I'd seek more professional advice.
This is exactly what it is. She applied to an advert that went out internally and externally. She went through the interview process along with other candidates and passed and was offered the position. The position was at a higher salary for doing much more. I think its unfair if they try flog it off as an internal transfer when it wasnt, it was quite clearly something that was open to all. She is part of a union and im encouraging her to make contact depending on what they say tommorow. I pray its simply a misunderstanding from HR's end and that the letter was just a template. The head of HR who sent the letter apparently can be quite difficult and abrupt from what iv heard and has a negative reputation ( i personally havnt experienced this but other long-serving people have mentioned this) If she rejects the job its back to uncertainty as to what will happen to her - they may give it to the person that came 2nd best in the interview and she may get placed somewhere else... God i just wish people stuck to what they agree - your not even safe with the government these days it seems...we will see tommorow..
Don't jump the gun --it is probably just another bureaucratic screw-up/mistake/misunderstanding. Start with politely enquiring whether they didn't make a mistake somewhere. Then you can challenge it.
Ok guys, she phoned them today to findout whether is was a mistake or not. Fortunately it was a mistake on the letter. The HR manager had sent it and said it was by accident and that she would send another letter with the correction next week once her admin person was back. Phew...is all i can say. I dont think she realised that this actually ruined our weekend as we were really quite upset by this - We spent it continously worrying and questioning how they could do this? whether it was a simple mistake or not? and actually considering what to do if it wasnt....The worlds economy is in a bad state and I thought we were about to become a victim of this, as they try to save and cut a few corners. Thanks for your words of support guys - it made this weekend bearable and really kept us hopeful - Its good to know we got some nice folks here to lend a hand and moral support when we need it and I am very greatful to you all for that. <3
Probably wasn't a mistake, HR. trying to save cash, send out initial letter with old salary, if they agree, good cash saved, if not put offer to original advert and claim admin mistake, cost? first class stamp. Happens all the time in our office when people try for a higher position, and people take it because they are too nervous about being passed over if they cause a fuss. negotiating a contract isn't a fuss, its what HR. is there for. I think this is a requirement for head of HR. everyone of them I've met is much the same
