Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days.

So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community - the completely useless.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

'In my 15 years in recruitment I haven't heard anything so ridiculous,' Mrs Mamo said yesterday.

'If the matter wasn't so serious I would be laughing out loud.

'Unfortunately it's extremely alarming. I need people who are hardworking and reliable - and I am pleased to discriminate in that way. If they're not then I really can't use them. The reputation of my business is on the line.

'Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being dicriminatory against unreliable people.

'She told me they'd had lots of problems with people taking them to court for adverts stating something like "would suit school leaver".'

Mrs Mamo, 48, of Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, runs Devonwood Recruitment, which supplies hundreds of cleaners, caterers and porters to hospitals across the country.

She filed the advert for a £5.80-an-hour domestic cleaner at a hospital in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, through the Jobcentre Plus online service last Thursday.

However, when she rang the nearest branch in Thetford, Norfolk, to make sure details would be available to jobseekers who turned up in person, she was transferred to a woman who said the wording was unacceptable.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0dsgiQt1T

This for real?! Im very glad it hit the papers. Wonder if its happened many other times leaving employers aghast but, for the sake of advertising through the job centre, reword their requirements. Unbelievable!

Finally, I can seek employment without being discriminated against!

I still think that the classification "lazy" is not fully covered in describing someone as being "not hardworking".

I'll have a word to my MP about this.

In NZ, the Employment Relations Act was crafted with respect to the Human Rights Act. It prohibits discrimination with regard to gender, race, religion...and a few other specific things. Unreliability is definitely not one of those things, expressed or implied.

I had been under the impression that NZ was the PC capital of the world.....but this (and a few other things I've read on TV), makes me reconsider.

As an aside......When my daughter was 15, she and 3 of her friends went "to the mall" on a weekend. When exiting a clothes shop, my daughter and the other dark-skinned friend were stopped, taken to a backroom, and partially strip-searched by the female manager, but with a male security guard present. There are several things wrong here, but.... Long story short... When I approached the Human Rights Commission (one angle), I was told they sympathise, but unfortunately the Human Rights Act only covers humans 16 years and over........!!!!!!!!.

I can't be bothered to even fill out the entire application. If I just fill in the part on where they should send my checks, you think that would be sufficient?

I can't be bothered to even fill out the entire application. If I just fill in the part on where they should send my checks, you think that would be sufficient?

Checks have to be cashed LRB, you give them your bank account number and they pay it straight in. Saves walking to the bank!

That might involve having to look for bank account details though, and the organisation skills required to know where they may be.

No, the thinking man drinks in pubs with an ATM in the foyer. He just sticks his card in and when it comes up empty, goes home.

In NZ, the Employment Relations Act was crafted with respect to the Human Rights Act. It prohibits discrimination with regard to gender, race, religion...and a few other specific things. Unreliability is definitely not one of those things, expressed or implied.

I had been under the impression that NZ was the PC capital of the world.....but this (and a few other things I've read on TV), makes me reconsider.

As an aside......When my daughter was 15, she and 3 of her friends went "to the mall" on a weekend. When exiting a clothes shop, my daughter and the other dark-skinned friend were stopped, taken to a backroom, and partially strip-searched by the female manager, but with a male security guard present. There are several things wrong here, but.... Long story short... When I approached the Human Rights Commission (one angle), I was told they sympathise, but unfortunately the Human Rights Act only covers humans 16 years and over........!!!!!!!!.

What they didn't tell you is that (if they had no reasonable cause) it's false imprisonment - a criminal offence (Not to mention civil remedies.)

I read that in the press and it, like most other things in the UK, didn't surprise me but it's all nonsense.

If an employer wants to hire a man for a job he simply bins all the resumes from ladies and vice versa, and similar for all other categories. Or he calls a cross section of applicants in and fails the ones he never intended to hire anyway.

It's a bit stupid putting words like "reliable" or "hard working" in a job advert. If you ask the applicant at the interview "are you reliable" and they answer "no" then they should be commended for their candidness but it's obvious they didn't want the job anyway. Of course if they turn up late for the interview and answer "yes" there is a clue there .

My sister works in the local job sentre back in the UK and she has some tales to tell that would make you wonder if you missed something somewhere. It seems that to an ever growing section of the population the work hours written in the contract of employement are merely a guide as to what you should put on your timesheet, not any sort of commitment on your part to actually attend for that time.

I wonder what would happen if you advertised for a lazy, skiving, dishonest layabout? Other than getting my resume on your desk pronto would you be held up for discrimination?

When I was managing a small call center once, I was asked to recruit some new staff and so I placed an ad.

Given the nature of the job, I naturally wanted to give the shortlisted candidates a brief telephone interview before proceeding to the next stage.

One of the candidates actually said to me: "Do you mind if I don't do a telephone interview but have an interview in person instead because I don't like talking on the telephone"

Needless to say, he didn't get the job.

I wonder what would happen if you advertised for a lazy, skiving, dishonest layabout? Other than getting my resume on your desk pronto would you be held up for discrimination?

Well, if I advertised for a "a lazy, skiving, dishonest layabout", I'd dismiss any resumes that came in, as they obviously do not conform to the description!

Our company is sorry, but we cannot hire murderers and rapists due to legal problems. Just because our company is called "Hitman" does not mean we intentionally want to hire contract killers. If you have any problems with our company policies of discrimination please take it up with the proper authorities.