Then you state that -Employee- has had -x- years of experience in -job- which qualifies them to do that job. You still have to have stated requirements. If you, say, made a requirement saying -Job- requires a college degree and the current holder does not have a college degree, you just 'grandfather' with proof of compentence being satisfactory or better yearly reviews (or whatever you have). Grandfathering in this case is simply saying the person does not meet the current criteria but was in the position prior to the creation of the documented job requirement and that, as I said, proof of compentence being satisfactory or better reviews.
If, on the other hand, you have someone in a job who really isn't qualified, you might have a problem.
Typically job qualifications allow lattitude through statements such as "...a combination of education and experience...". I have seen experience compared to education expressed as a ratio of 4 to 1 or 5 to 1. Like job requires 4 years college or 3 years college and 4 years experience or 2 years of college and 8 years experience. By the time you reach this, 10 years experience usually does the trick.
But there are some considerations, such as engineering degrees for design engineers. But - even there you could make a case for experience.
If your folks have been functioning in the lab OK for all these years, you should have no problem as long as they do meet requirements. For example, someone has to be the 'expert' in uncertainty as it relates to your calibrations and tests. I do know there was static talk about requirements for lab managers in the guide 25 list serve this summer. I wasn't paying real close attention, though. Some folks were taking it very seriously practically wanting an academic or 'scholoarly' type while others were saying if they know how to do the job, formal education is not an issue. There was also commentary on the different aspects such as manageing a lab as opposed to understanding theory.
Have I sufficiently confused the issue for you?
