Seniority - Vacant Duty Pick HELP !!!

[islfor]

We have 2 candidates who have applied for a vacant duty both started on same day ( 1 started earlier and has pay number 2 digits less than the one started later ) Does anyone know the correct way of dealing with this ?
I have seen the Way Forward agreement and it does say :
13.9 Where several employees start on the same day, the following factors will determine the relative order: firstly, any periods of Post Office service on other grades, secondly, date of selection and, thirdly, date of birth.

WHAT DOES DATE OF SELECTION MEAN ?? Please HELP !!!

[Himaggen]

Date of Selection can only refer to their Start Date, (there will unlikely be a paper trail for when the decision was made to employ each entrant who started on the same day).

Basically for the purposes of your question the elder gets first pick.

[islfor]

does that not go down as ageism ?

[Himaggen]

Only if the younger or someone speaking on behalf of the younger wishes to try to make it so.

That decision would need to prove that you've been disadvantaged due to age. Forget about it if it's just a petty, they've always done that one, or some such similar whinge.

[islfor]

just been sent this :
3. COMMENCING EMPLOYMENT ON THE SAME DAY
Where several employees have the same length of service (as defined above), the
agreement provides for seniority to be determined in the following order: firstly, any periods
of Post Office service on other grades (i.e. longest total PO service first), secondly, date of
selection (i.e. earliest date first) and thirdly, date of birth (i.e. oldest first). For employees
recruited since the date of the agreement (14 February 2000), “date of selection” will be
defined as follows: firstly start time on same day (earliest first), if still equal
then payroll number (earliest first).

For employees recruited before 14 February 2000, it will not be practicable to re-visit records
of recruitment processes that took place in some cases many years previously. Therefore,
purely as a one-off exercise used only to separate employees with exactly the same length
of service, the date of selection and date of birth criteria above will be replaced with: firstly,
existing substantive grade (highest first), if still equal then position on existing locally agreed
seniority list (highest first). In applying this last criteria the local seniority list must be one
that conforms with the previous national agreement, and in particular one where the
provisions of the part-time harmonisation agreement have been fully applied. Where
employees are added into an existing list (e.g. following transfer) where there are already
other employees who started on the same day, every effort should be made to apply the
date of selection criterion to determine a placing. Where this is not possible then date of
birth should be used.

[Himaggen]

For employees recruited since the date of the agreement (14 February 2000), “date of selection” will be defined as follows: firstly start time on same day (earliest first), if still equal then payroll number (earliest first).

Surely there exists a system for payroll number allocation! (I'll wager it is not random and therefore either alphabetical or based upon age).

[fishtank]

For employees recruited since the date of the agreement (14 February 2000), “date of selection” will be defined as follows: firstly start time on same day (earliest first), if still equal then payroll number (earliest first).

Surely there exists a system for payroll number allocation! (I'll wager it is not random and therefore either alphabetical or based upon age).

There is but your payroll number may have more to do with when your employment details were processed rather than exactly when you started.
Personally i think it's all rather overblown for the sake of one place in the seniority list.
If they both started on the same day...toss a coin for it.

[nataddick]

I have read through the posts on the forum and this is a current issue at my place of work. We have a 'length of service' list of several hundred. I started on the same day as 40 other people - so we are not just talking about one place on the list. Most of us started on the same day at the same time. We have been told that if people start on the same day at the same time, then date of selection extends to date of interview, aptitude test, application form. I don't think payroll number has any relevance. My point is that you cannot have a length of service list that includes a period before you started work and is therefore not contractual ? A fairer system would be to draw lots once and for all. Would be grateful for any up to date sources of reference - presumably the length of service list rather than seniority was introduced because of age discrimination.