PDA

View Full Version : Job Advertisement - legal compliance - job hoppers



HR Manager Melbourne
15-06-2012, 01:23 PM
Dear HR Colleges,

HR Professionals come across job hoppers and candidates showing strong record of employer loyalty and while there are suitable positions for both profiles, some positions, in my experience, require candidates to show a certain degree of stability in previous employment (e.g. for managerial roles). I am writing to enquire if anyone had experience in writing a specific job advert to target those applicants without opening a company to discrimination claims (since at times candidates cannot control circumstances such as redundancies, etc). Appreciate your advice.

Job Media
15-06-2012, 02:15 PM
That's an interesting one. We see hundreds of thousands of ads and I can't ever recall seeing one that stated anything about a candidate's job stability.

To be sure, I would contact the The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission -

Enquiry Line
Enquiry Line: 9am–5pm Monday to Friday
Phone: 1300 292 153 or (03) 9032 3583
TTY: 1300 289 621
Email: enquiries@veohrc.vic.gov.au

Even if you are legally able to do it, I would have a think about how it would look from a PR perspective.

It may be safer to just filter out serial job hoppers as part of the initial selection process. Then you can actually see if there is any evidence of plain bad luck!

Neb-Maat-Re
15-06-2012, 02:36 PM
But aren't we always being told that changing jobs a lot is the new and groovy thing to do?

Jokes aside, discrimination claims can only be made for breaches of the legislated criteria. In Victoria, these are:

age
carer status, family responsibilities, parental status
disability (including physical, sensory and intellectual disability, work related injury, medical conditions, mental, psychological and learning disabilities)
employment activity
gender identity, lawful sexual activity, sexual orientation
industrial activity
marital status

Nothing in there precludes asking for stability.

"Employment activity" is about an employee making reasonable requests for their entitlements. I think it'd be a stretch for someone to argue being excluded from getting a job because they changed jobs a lot consituted unfair treatment because of "employment activity".

As an aside, even if you breach the legislated criteria in an advert, you only get pursued for a claim if an individual makes a specific claim. For an example, I saw an ad on LinkedIn that required applicants to be Chinese. I reported it to VEOHRC, who said they would only pursure it if I made a specific complaint about not getting the job. I didn't actually want the job, so didn't pursue it further.

However, I do agree with Job Media, it'd just be cleaner and simpler to weed them out in the selection stage.

Job Media
27-06-2012, 03:57 PM
But aren't we always being told that changing jobs a lot is the new and groovy thing to do?

Only if you are "Gen Y" :) or are we up to Gen Z now?

Besides, something can be groovy, but still not good for your career :)

You made some very valid points there Neb-Maat-Re.

Just one thing to be aware of, that the company who owns the advertising medium is also responsible for what they publish, so there is a chance that they may reject your ad if they are concerned that it may be discriminatory.

Tiger
28-06-2012, 09:29 AM
Getting too specific in a Job Advertisement may well defeat the whole purpose of advertising the job in the first place.
We advertise because we want to get the best candidate. If you become too restrictive, you may very well deter those you want to attact, from applying.

These days, there is such a huge amount of change. Companies go belly up all the time, companies downsize, they change people's jobs without consultation; they do all sorts of things which force individuals to move on. 'Job hopping" is not always the preference of those that appear to do it; they simply may not have a choice.
There has also been a huge increase in contracting due to more organizations reluctance to replace permanent jobs.

My point is that I think you could be taking a very narrow view point here. Okay by all means, you want someone to show they've been in one job for years but look at it from another point of view which is some who stay in the one job in the one company for years and years end up institutionalised meaning, they become very set in the ways of that organization, become stale and may well have a harder time adapting to a new company/job.

Admittedly, job movements today are very different from 20 years ago and 20 years before that would have been very different again - from our parents and grandparents time when it was one job/company for life at the end of which they received a gold watch. But times have changed and if you have people stable for two years, that is pretty good these days and as employers and in HR, that is a change which we have to face and adapt to.

From where I sit I think that someone's experience level is going to be far higher if they have worked in different companies - their learning will be broader and that is a strength they can bring to your organization.

So my advice is, keep your ads general and use the review of CVs to decided on your short list - you just might be pleasantly surprised.

Moz
28-06-2012, 11:13 AM
Good points Tiger!

Neb-Maat-Re, be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :)

Moz
28-06-2012, 11:15 AM
sorry Neb-Maat-Re, I just realised that you weren't the original poster, it was "HR Manager Melbourne"

my apologies

HR Manager Melbourne
03-07-2012, 03:55 PM
Thank you All for your kind inputs,

Agree with the feedback (published generic) and contacted VEOHRC on two different occasions. Ready? VEOHRC confirmed that it is indeed would constitute to an... indirect discrimination in cases when a specific complaint is made.

Information on discrimination ? Know your rights (http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=729&Itemid=12#Indirect) discrimination

This of course can be debated (e.g. in court, etc), but I'd rather avoid that.

Warm regards,

Neb-Maat-Re
03-07-2012, 06:47 PM
Interesting - which of the fourteen characteristics did they say would be indirectly discriminated against in this case?

Cottoneyes
04-07-2012, 08:51 AM
Interesting - which of the fourteen characteristics did they say would be indirectly discriminated against in this case?

I'd be guessing employment status is the one that would be most successful. If you disciminated against a long term unemployed on that basis, it could be strung out to show discrimination against regular employment change as well.

Interesting reading that companies discriminate when they say things like "it is a requirement of all workers to do 12 hour shifts"

Neb-Maat-Re
06-07-2012, 08:25 AM
I'd be guessing employment status is the one that would be most successful. If you disciminated against a long term unemployed on that basis, it could be strung out to show discrimination against regular employment change as well.

But "employment status" isn't one of the 'protected personal characteristic'.

Someone in this situation would have to mount an argument that they were out of the work force for a long because of their parental status, for example.


Interesting reading that companies discriminate when they say things like "it is a requirement of all workers to do 12 hour shifts"

I agree, I found that an odd example for them to quote.

HR Manager Melbourne
06-07-2012, 10:02 AM
As suspected, in the phone conversations they mentioned candidates on parental/extended personal "breaks" (e.g. for health reasons), and those made redundant (e.g. it's out of their control).

I must add though, it sounded as if they were trying to be overly cautious (as they normally are) - no direct clear guidelines, the conversation was in line with "to be on a safe side..." .