Some employers have a more casual attitude to recruitment procedures than they do to other people management practices such as discipline and grievance, or performance management. However, a recent case serves as a reminder that businesses must ensure that all of their recruitment activities comply with employment law to avoid being unable to defend the company against claims of discrimination in recruitment.
Case law
In Mohammed v Bloomsbury Bowling, the employer’s Head Chef asked Mr Mohammed to attend for interview after viewing his CV online. The CV in question did not include his date of birth or age. Mr Mohammed claimed that he was asked at the interview how old he was. When he replied that he was 40, the Head Chef said that he was under instruction by the General Manager to reject his application because he was too old.
Naturally, the company presented a different version of events. The Head Chef confirmed that he had interviewed Mr Mohammed but had doubts about his ability to work in a busy kitchen. He told Mr Mohammed at the end of the interview that he would not be offering him the job. The Head Chef admitted to making a joke about Mr Mohammed’s greying hair and the stress of working in kitchens but said that this was only to put him at ease. The company denied age discrimination.
In coming to a conclusion, the employment tribunal was not provided with documentary evidence in relation to the company’s recruitment procedures. It could not make a decision based on fact about whether the General Manager had or had not instructed the Head Chef not to appoint on the basis of age.
However, it did take note of the failure to provide a recruitment procedure, the comment about grey hair, the fact that the successful candidate was ten years younger and the contradictory evidence provided by the company. This moved the burden to the company to prove that discrimination in recruitment had not taken place.
