There were four interviewers. Two at management level, one person from human resources, and one science staff person. From the get-go the environment was quite hostile and unpleasant. One of the managers and the science staff person were really on the attack right from the beginning while the other manager and HR person sat back passively and allowed it all to happen. At the beginning the one manager who was on the attack was insisting that even though this was a scientific role with an opportunity to work closely with research teams I would not be permitted to be a co-author on any work and that I would not be allowed to have my own collaborations outside of the business either. Moreover, he insisted that I would have to relinquish any on-going collaborations if I was to be hired and he wanted to know if I would do that. I stated that if I was offered the job and accepted the job that it seems I would have to be prepared for that and stated that yes, I was prepared that if I accepted a job there I would have to give up on-going ties with external colleagues and it was clear that was a condition of employment, so I was fine with that. He didn't believe me that I was being truthful in the interview and stated as much. He also turned it around and began casting aspersions as to my current research record and productivity by saying "I don't know what you get away with where you are now" and indicated that I wouldn't be allowed to 'get away' with what ever it was I was doing at the CLS - this is still a puzzling statement as I'm not sure what he was getting at, but my impression was that he thought I was perhaps lazy and either fabricating data or just getting by without doing any work at all. Focus then turned to very much soft-ball questions from the HR person and the other manager, with no hint that they were surprised by the handling of the interview thus far. Afterward the science staff person began outlining the tasks that would be required and what the job looked like and waned to know if I was amenable to that sort of work. I indicated that the job ad was clear enough and that their description was in-line with my understanding and expectations of the role. They then suggested that I wasn't being truthful and indicated that they thought I would not be OK with that level of a role at the company. I pointed out that my priority was stable employment in an area that fit with my background and expertise. The staff person then asked a thinly veiled question regarding my opinion about harassment and people being short tempered with staff and what did I think of that. Background - before this I got wind of a senior university professor who had been banned because they raised their voice to this staff person, so I felt like I was being sized up to try and ascertain if I was an ally with the banned individual or not. Immediately after this the scientific staff person went on the attack and flatly stated that they didn't think I would be reliable, which made me wonder why on earth I was asked to come in for an interview if this person and the other hostile manager who was clearly running the show were so clearly against me as an applicant. The interview closed out by asking me to explain, in detail, every single component at one of the experimental endstations in the synchrotron facility, end-to-end, in order. At this point it became clear they weren't asking this of everyone, they just wanted to ask a question that I wouldn't be able to give a perfect answer to, so I listed the most significant and major components and ended it there. The facility was very tardy with following up. The position had been filled for quite some time before the person in HR let me know that the position had been filled some time ago and thanked me for my time. The person who was hired was a family member of someone already employed in the facility with much less experience in the areas they were required to work for the job. As far as I know they have performed fine, but I honestly have no idea why I was asked to come interview except for two of the interviewers to rake me over the coals and have a 'go' at me. Given that it was clear from the initial questions I was asked that it was going to be hostile and that they didn't see any value in me being part of their team I feel it was a massive waste of time for those individuals who write letters of reference as well as a massive waste of a vacation day from my job I had at the time. I used to work for multiple major Telcos back in the 90s (Sprint, Nortel, etc) and would conduct some high-pressure interviews - but never outwardly hostile interviews. The interview process was a farce and I was very disappointed at the HR person and the other manager who were complicit with allowing their colleagues to go so far off the rails. They had a very high opinion of themselves throughout the interview which shamefully represented an otherwise good company and its fantastic and capable staff.