In workplaces across the United Kingdom and beyond, fairness in hiring continues to be a contentious issue. While legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 provides a strong legal framework to guard against discrimination in recruitment, there remains a stark reality: many job applicants perceive hiring practices as opaque, biased, or outright discriminatory. Complaints can arise from obvious sources, such as discrimination based on race or gender, but also from subtler biases involving age, educational background, socio-economic status, or even accents. Given this complexity, traditional grievance procedures or legal channels can be overly adversarial, time-consuming, and expensive. Increasingly, mediation is stepping into the spotlight as a more collaborative tool to resolve these disputes.
Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process where a neutral third party helps disputing parties open dialogue, understand each other’s perspectives, and find a mutually acceptable solution. Though often associated with workplace disputes after employment begins, mediation is becoming more prevalent as a means of addressing complaints during the recruitment phase. As organisations commit to improving equity, diversity, and inclusion, how complaints are handled is just as important as the policies themselves.
Common Grounds for Recruitment Complaints
Complaints concerning unfair recruitment practices can be rooted in a number of issues. Many involve conscious or unconscious bias during CV screening or interviews, favouritism, or a lack of transparency in how decisions were made. For example, an applicant might suspect they were passed over for a role in favour of someone with personal connections to the hiring manager. Others may feel that the selection criteria unduly favoured one demographic over another or that reasonable accommodations were not made for a disability.
Sometimes, complaints may also centre on vague feedback or a lack of feedback altogether, fueling suspicions that the process was rigged or discriminatory. While not all complaints are grounded in illegal practices, even perceptions of unfairness can damage an employer’s reputation and erode the trust of prospective candidates. In today’s economy, where public scrutiny and employer review platforms hold considerable sway, it is crucial for employers to have mechanisms in place to resolve recruitment disputes smartly and sensitively.
The Limits of Traditional Grievance Routes
When complaints rise to the level where the candidate or even a new employee decides to formally challenge the process, employers tend to fall back on formal grievance procedures. In some cases, applicants may proceed directly to employment tribunals when they believe discrimination has occurred. While this can be effective in uncovering systemic issues, it often escalates the conflict. Both parties become entrenched, and rather than seeking mutual understanding, the focus shifts to blame attribution, legal defence, and compensation.
This legalistic approach can deter applicants from raising valid concerns, especially when they lack the resources for legal representation. Even within large organisations, HR departments can become overwhelmed handling investigations and paperwork, often sidelining the more human aspects of the conflict. Meanwhile, the opportunity for early resolution and learning is lost. Moreover, legal action might only address compliance rather than improving the underlying recruitment culture.
Mediation as a Collaborative Alternative
Against this background, mediation offers a more constructive and human-centred path. Mediation can take many forms, but it generally involves an impartial facilitator who guides a structured conversation between the complainant and the representative of the hiring organisation. This avoids the adversarial tone of tribunals and fosters direct, often restorative communication.
One of mediation’s primary strengths lies in its informality. That is not to say it lacks rigour, but rather that it removes much of the procedural stiffness that can make formal hearings feel impersonal or confrontational. Instead of focusing solely on written documentation or cross-examining witnesses, mediation focuses on people—how they felt, what they experienced, and what they hope to change. In recruitment disputes, this can be particularly powerful. Candidates may not be seeking retribution, but simply acknowledgment, accountability, or clarification.
Equally, organisations benefit from hearing how their recruitment processes are experienced by candidates, especially from marginalised groups. Rather than being kept at arm’s length by legal teams, hiring managers and HR personnel can gain insight, shift their approach, and build tangible improvements into future hiring practices.
Building Trust Through Confidentiality and Neutrality
A cornerstone of mediation is its confidentiality. This allows both parties to speak openly without worrying about reputational damage or admissions being used against them later in court. For the complainant, particularly if they are still interested in working with the organisation, the safety of confidential discussion allows them to raise concerns without burning bridges. For employers, it means they can explore solutions, offer apologies, or acknowledge misunderstandings without admitting legal liability.
The presence of a neutral mediator also instils confidence. The mediator has no stake in the outcome and is trained to remain impartial while promoting empathy, clarity, and fairness. This neutrality helps rebalance power dynamics that might otherwise dissuade a candidate from speaking up against a large organisation. Reporting complaints through an anonymous tip line or rigid HR process can sometimes feel like shouting into a void; mediation offers candidates the dignity of being heard and the potential for influence.
Case Illustration: A Recruitment Miscommunication
Consider a situation where a black woman applies for a senior role at a media company and receives only a generic rejection email after what she believed was a strong interview. She later learns that the panel selected a younger white male candidate with similar experience. Feeling marginalised and questioning the fairness of the outcome, she raises a formal complaint through the company’s HR portal. The response is polite, but vague and defensive, citing ‘fit with company culture’ as a deciding factor. Tensions quickly rise.
Rather than escalate to a tribunal, the company offers mediation. In the session, the candidate explains how the feedback felt dismissive and how repeated praise for ‘culture fit’ seemed coded to exclude people like her. The hiring manager, initially on the defensive, begins to grasp how their language and decisions may have been interpreted. They acknowledge gaps in how the company defines ‘fit’ and agree to revise their evaluation criteria, while the candidate appreciates the opportunity to be heard and influence systemic change.
Although the candidate ultimately does not ask for the role to be reconsidered, she leaves the mediation feeling respected, and remains open to future roles at the organisation. Both parties walk away with clearer communication and goodwill intact—a far cry from the combative alternative of legal escalation.
Integrating Mediation Into Recruitment Practice
To realise mediation’s full potential, it needs to be embedded thoughtfully into organisational culture. First, businesses should make it clear in their recruitment communications and job adverts that they are open to feedback and offer mediation as an early intervention option should concerns arise. This sends a powerful message about their commitment to fairness and responsiveness.
Second, HR professionals and hiring managers should receive training on not only fair recruitment practices but how to respond constructively to complaints. This includes understanding the principles of mediation and recognising when it may be a suitable course. Mediation need not always come from external professionals; many organisations now invest in internal mediators or collaborate with trained third-party services.
Finally, follow-through matters. Mediation must not be tokenistic. When candidates provide feedback through this process, outcomes and insights need to be documented—anonymously if necessary—and reflected in future recruitment processes. Whether it’s diversifying interview panels, clarifying criteria, or simplifying feedback loops, mediation can become an engine for continuous improvement.
Addressing Power Imbalances Proactively
One of the common criticisms of dispute resolution methods is that they often skew towards those with more institutional power. Organisations, after all, have more information, more resources, and more resilience to complaints, whereas individual candidates may feel vulnerable and expendable. Mediation seeks to level this imbalance, but additional safeguards can help.
This includes offering candidates the option of bringing a support person or representative into the mediation. Ensuring mediators have cultural competence and diversity training is also critical; a mediator who understands intersectionality and lived experiences can create a safer space for marginalised voices. Moreover, timelines are important—offering mediation must happen swiftly, while memories are still fresh and the chance for meaningful resolution is still present.
Conclusion: Towards a Fairer Recruitment Ecosystem
Addressing grievances about recruitment fairness will always be delicate. The very nature of hiring means that most people will not get the job, and disappointment can sometimes be mistaken for unfairness. But when complaints carry legitimacy, they deserve more than bureaucratic responses or legal evasion.
Mediation offers a transformative approach—one that listens, learns, and leads to action. It allows grievances to emerge into the open not as threats, but as opportunities for improvement and connection. Candidates leave with greater clarity and dignity, and employers gain insight into how to refine their systems.
By harnessing mediation’s potential, organisations not only minimise legal risks—they cultivate a reputation for procedural justice and inclusive excellence. In a world where talent is increasingly selective and reputation is built on transparency, that’s not only the right thing to do—it’s also the smart thing.
