Discrimination with job adverts

[tshaw]

I came across an advert posted on seek today for a Store Manager role with Factory X...

http://www.seek.com.au/showjob.asp?jobid=11348914

What concerned me the most was this

"Please forward your resume with cover letter & a recent photograph to: sebastian@factoryx.com.au"

What are your comments?

[cam]

Hmm, I can see where they're coming from. Dangerfield is a company that has developed an image around it's products that I've noticed is reflected in the staff they have in their customer facing positions (more so than most clothing retailers). Upholding the brand image is fair enough and I don't think it would be discriminatory to race or anything like that, whether it's fair game to be stating this sort of thing this early in the hiring process is the big question.

I think it's OK because the position is based on a look as well as a managerial function, not to the extent where an actor would be decided on test shots but for someone like Dangerfield it would be a factor in the decision process. In reality they're saving time and effort because the same decision would just be made in the interview process but is this acceptable in a job ad?

[tshaw]

Good points, but as both an experienced IT and Retail recruiter. I suggest to candidates to take their photos off the resume - I dont want to prejudge the candidate before the 1st interview.

[Alison]

As far as I can recall, appearance is not one of the grounds for discrimination in most states (except for Victoria I think - anyone got any idea?). It's definitely tricky ground because things like gender, race or even disability could be determined from a photo. I certainly wouldn't ask for a photo but I don't work in an industry where appearance is important. I agree with the comments above about Dangerfield having a certain image to uphold.

Another interesting area I'd like to explore with the other posters here is putting a certain number of years experience as an essential criteria for a job in an advertisement. Does anyone think that this could hold up in an age discrimination claim?

[cam]

I'm not too familiar with the legalities of discrimination but I don't see how years experience could be seen as age discrimination. Perhaps if the years stated far outweighed the responsability of the job but wouldn't that be silly because essentially the more experience a person has in an area the more you have to pay them.

But really 'years experience' doesn't coincide with age that much considering career changes are commonplace these days. A 25 year old could have 5 years experience in a field where as a 45 year old could only have 2 if they've recently changed careers. I think mentioning 'experience' requirements is justified yet unfortunately a few HR Buzzers have had trouble cracking into the workforce based on a lack of experience.

http://www.hrbuzz.com.au/vb/showthread.php?t=113

[Pete]

Photo's - My personal opinion is that requesting a photo with applications is bad practice, regardless of the law.
It really does leave an employer wide open to claims of discrimination (as Alison stated above). It will deter any applicant who wishes to be considered on merit, not compete on "look". It implies clearly that how you look is as (or more) important than how good your experience is.

In any case, not hiring someone because they "don't look like the sort of person who works here" is the same as hiring them because they LOOK like who you want. If you are going to base selection and hiring on such flimsy practice, you might as well use handwriting analysis and palm reading!

Regarding stating years of experience required - in New Zealand, under the Human Rights Act, it is deemed illegal to state a number of years. A requirement for (say) five years experience, will prohibit anyone under 23 from applying as they have not had time since leaving school at age 18 to gain that experience. Likewise stating 5-10 years (an indicative upper limit) discriminates against older people with more experience. So both are seen to be age discrimination.

[kevinh]

Way back when one could dictate job ads to The Age over the phone, some operators would not allow advertisers to specify a n years experience, because the publisher is also liable for discrimination. I believe it is technically illegal to require a specific number of years experience but everyone does it nowadays. I guess it may come down to interpretation of the law.

Asking for photos however sends a clear message that you intend to discriminate based upon an applicant's physical appearance, which is illegal in most if not all States. In Victoria there are exceptions

An employer may offer employment only to a person with particular physical features (including ‘looks’) in dramatic, artistic, entertainment, photographic or modelling performances or work.

Obviously this doesn't include working in a retail outlet!

Victorian employers and recruiter can find more information at the VEOHRC site
There is also a Federal Govt site here which has links to similar bodies in each State and Territory.

[RDoherty]

Hi, I am currently in recruiting for positions where the physcial size of an individual can impact on their ability to complete the job in a safe manner due to the repetive manual handling and space restrictions.

Does anyone have any recommendations as to how I can work around this and not discriminate.

Due to location, the first time we sight the candidate is at interview and would like to try and overcome having to do so many interviews if they dont meet this criteria.

[kevinh]

In the position requirements you could detail what they have to be able to do, how often and with what frequency. I have seen a public sector (City Council) job spec that did this. It went to enormous lengths to describe physical activities which the person would have to undertake. I thought it was a bit over the top at the time but with hindsight I can see why they did it. While you probably don't want to do this in the job ad itself you could make it clear that certain physical activity is part of the job and insist that they obtain a full position description and address certain requirements in the PD.

However, if you want to specify size and/or weight in the job ad I would speak to your State Commissioner for Discrimination Office or equivalent to be on the safe side!

[Pete]

"Fitness for work" - might be a good route to explore. Similar to the examples above - is the applicant physically capable of completing safely the requirements of the role? Not being fit enough to safely do the work is a valid reason not to employ, so detailing physical work in the position profile could be a good pre-emptive measure that encourages applicants to self de-select, as would be some clever wording in your ads regarding physical activity, fitness, demands of the role etc. But saying "you look too fat to walk down our aisles" and ruling someone out could buy you a whole lot of trouble.

Health checks that rule out applicants with pre-existing back injuries, repetitive strains etc could help you out. Even stating that health screening will occur can encourage de-selection.

If by size you are referring to "any-one over 5'8" is automatically too tall" then you have a problem, as that woud, I think, be discrimination.

A lateral concern would be the nature of the workplace if it is cramped and requires repetitive manual handling, is it safe for anyone? What reasonable adjustments could be made to the workplace so that it accomodates not just a wider range of employees, but is a safer and more positive environment for existing staff?