It's sometimes hard to differentiate, and I haven't had formal training in either hiring practice either so It's hard for me to explain it. But here goes:
Usually when hiring, there will be a score alloted to various categories for a candidate based on various factors, and when comapred against the other candidates you get an order of merit. Those factors can be how well they scored in their education, their qualifications, the length of time in previous positions, what roles they held previously, any additional positions like being an employee liaison or health and safety representative, etc. The person highest in the order of merit will be the one offered the job. It's very black-and-white with all the evidence laid out. In the situation that Godson posted about, he says "they decided to keep the lazier person because of experience." As I said in my previous post, that on-paper experience is what comes under that person's merit-based performance.
When you come to looking at the best-suited ranking, it places less emphasis on merit and more on seeing how well the candidate will fit in the position. This way you can potentially select a younger, less experienced candidate over a more experienced one becasue they can show that they will work harder or be a better team player or be able to learn faster. It can also potentially filter out possible trobule makers that you don't want disrupting the vibe of the workplace. As Godson says, "I told them my request, which was to eliminate one of the lazier travellers who has been pretty passive-aggressive, even though it would reduce our overall staff by 1 experienced person by nearly a month. It would have given us a better environment to harber hard work, teamwork, and a much more cohesive team."
So yeah he's upset that his request was ignored. Maybe the employer's hands were tied and couldn't justify keeping the other staff member because it has an inflexible hiring policy.
That's about as well as I can explain it.