RECRUITMENT - 23.02.2010

Now you can’t hire “reliable” employees?

Placing an ad

Nicole Mamo runs her own recruitment agency. Recently she approached her local Jobcentre Plus and asked it to display her ad for a “cleaner”. She had given a detailed description of the role, the wage on offer - £5.80 p.h. - and ended by saying that applicants “must be very reliable and hardworking”. Sounds like a reasonable request for any employer to make?

I’ve got a query

The following day she noticed that her ad was not yet up (although, rather strangely, it could be viewed online) and decided to query this. The person Ms Mamo spoke to informed her it had been banned because the wording used “discriminated against unreliable people” and that the Jobcentre Plus “could be sued”.

Is that really true?

As she runs a successful business, Ms Mamo knows a thing or two about employment law. So she decided to challenge this reasoning. After all, her ad had clearly not included any wording that discriminated on the grounds of age, sex, disability, race or sexual orientation, which do give applicants the right to take an employer to tribunal.

Groundless claim

She pointed out that the “unreliable” are themselves not a protected category under discrimination law and, furthermore, she needed reliable workers to uphold her company’s good reputation. The representative could see her point but refused to change the decision.

That’s just stupid

As we’ve previously explained, there are many nasty traps that employers can fall into when drafting job ads, but providing you use “safe wording” you can easily avoid them (yr.11, iss.16, p.7, see The next step). So if you were to use the word “unreliable”, could it really cause you any nasty problems?

Is it really that bad?

In our view, this shouldn’t present any difficulties, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to agree. It became embroiled in this debate and issued a statement saying that: “The way in which Ms Mamo worded her ad in no way breached any discrimination law.” Interestingly, the Department for Work and Pensions - which is responsible for Jobcentre Plus - later said it “welcomed ads seeking reliable applicants”.

Why all the fuss?

So why did this issue get out of hand in the first place? We can’t say for certain, but it seems likely that there was some confusion at this Jobcentre Plus over candidates who may be disabled.

Tip. Certain conditions can cause absence at short notice which could be (wrongly) interpreted as unreliability. However, where an applicant discloses a disability, the employer has a duty to consider it and, where appropriate, make reasonable adjustments. It seems that the person Ms Mamo spoke to wasn’t aware of this fact!

For a link to the previous article, visit http://personnel.indicator.co.uk(PS 12.05.02).