Changing A Job Offer

[saxy_jag]

If someone's applied for an advertised permanent post, been offered the post verbally and accepted the offer in the same conversation, can the employer then change the post to a temporary one before any written offer has been sent?

The reason given for the employer doing so in this instance is 'pending review' - that is departmental review as opposed to a review of the individual's performance in the post.

[woofgang]

My understanding from working in the NHS is until you have signed the new contract, anything can change.

[Buenchico]

While there might be some interesting legal arguments around the fact that a verbal contract has just as much standing in law as a written one, the 'down to earth' answer is simply that they can clearly make that change. After all, since a new employee can be dismissed without reason within the first two years of employment, they could simply take you on under the permanent contract, fire you 1 second later and then invite you to apply for a temporary post.

[Peter Pedant]

presumably she needs the job or else she could repudiate her acceptance

I reluctantly agree with BC altho I think it is unlawful

I think I would accept the temp job saying you understood that it was permanent, but recognised it is temp
and then look for another one .....

[Prudie]

could it be that 'pending review' could mean waiting on references or security clearance for example, that's fairly standard.

[boxtops]

Our offer letters usually say "offered subject to satisfactory references and clearances" - but as woof says, anything changes in the nHS, you can find yoruself on a fixed term contract rather than permanent, as needs and structures change very quickly at the moment.

[saxy_jag]

Person is already a sessional employee with this employer, plus did the exact job (with fewer hours) last year on an advertised temporary contract. It's nothing to do with waiting for references or security clearance - that's all in place.

Last year's business operation was, shall we say, experimental. It was more than that because the top bosses expected it to flop but instead it was successful beyond anything they had imagined. That's why they advertised the extra, permanent post this year - to expand on that.

The offerer of the post is as p**d off as the applicant. She wanted a permanent member of staff whom she knew she could work with and can do the job. We will now wait to see what the confirmatory letter says (if indeed it can be called such if it contradicts the original, verbal offer as applied for). Acceptance with registration of reluctance/disagreement will then be the course of action, followed by some lengthy talks with the union, methinks. There may be some discrimination involved.

[woofgang]

The only thing I would say is be careful. How much does this person want the job? Would they be upset if they ended up with no job at that firm? While companies have to comply with the law, being perceived as a trouble maker, whatever the rights and wrongs, is not a good way to start a career anywhere.

[jno]

it certainly sounds as though some sort of contract has been struck, unless it was clearly stated that "nothing said in this meeting is binding". If on the basis of the offer and acceptance you'd chucked in your previous job, sold your house and moved to Orkney, you'd have grounds for suing them. As things stand, you (or whoever) will just have to decide if they want the job or not.

[factor-fiction]

I think the 'under review' will be an organisational review. These are commonplace now and it's more common for jobs to start out as temporary roles. Every teaching job I've had has been a temporary appointment. I quite like it- it means if I choose to leave I don't feel guilty for letting them down.

It may also be though that they are not 100% sure you are the perfect fit so they want the flexibility to be able to either retain or release you without having to go through a dismissal process if things don't work out.

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure what form the verbal offer took. I know of jobs that have been advertised as one thing (maybe permanent, maybe 12 months) and they whittle it down to a couple of people; then in then final interview that ask "Are you a firm candidate?"; then when a formal offer letter comes it's for something slightly different.

The bottom line is though, as Buenchico says, they can sack you at any time in the early stages for almost any reason, regardless of whether your contact is temporary or permanent

[Peter Pedant]

// I'm not sure what form the verbal offer took. I know of jobs that have been advertised as one thing (maybe permanent, maybe 12 months) and they whittle it down to a couple of people; then in then final interview that ask "Are you a firm candidate?"; then when a formal offer letter comes it's for something slightly different.//

honestly with an NHS background I am shocked that this goes on in the context of an employers' market.

I did one job interview when the head of HR tooled up and said this post is for one year.... And I pointed out to all the candidates that should they be successful they would be resigning a permanent post for one lasting a year.
No one accepted.

The head of HR started wickering about the ( completely accurate ) waste of time . and I snarled -

Oh the one year contract is such a good deal - youre on one are you ?

I am now retired and he is head of HR of a Very Large NHS Trust.

[saxy_jag]

We're talking local authority here and we're not talking a big departmental review - that's already happened. The 'under review' is something that's just cropped up after four months of discussing and preparing the recruitment process.

When the person concerned was recruited for a fixed term post last year (one of two advertised) the interviewer was told by the head of department before the interviews not to recruit this person. Luckily the interviewer has a mind of their own and stands by their decision, as they will on this round.

There are other things that point to the fact that the HoD is running scared - applicant has bailed HoD out over a couple of major points of poor practice in the past but not reported it. Ultimately the applicant is more dangerous to HoD if outside the organisation. Applicant knows that but not sure HoD realises.

As I've said, think we will just wait and see what transpires and take union advice if necessary.

[woofgang]

if the applicant has covered up poor practice in the past then if it comes out now, they are likely to be in the dodo for the cover up.

[woofgang]

...and when i worked in the NHS, i would not have employed anyone who I knew had covered up bad practice rather than reporting it.

[saxy_jag]

Not a case of covering up - just one of a few people getting them out of the muck so they wouldn't look a prat in front of their own bosses/peers.
Really nothing that anyone could prove either way - just that HoD *thinks* there is, for some reason.
As I've said, we shall see what transpires and take it up via the union if need be.