Voicemail from Hirer

shabalala

Hi All,

My wife had an interview last week, anyway it all went rather well at interview and she was hopeful.
Then on Friday she recieved a voicemail saying the following.

Hi *%$£* thanks for coming to the interview on wednesday, we were very impressed by your experience and all aspects of your cv, however due to your situation with having a small child (1yr old) we feel its not the right position for you at this time, we will kepp your details on file and if YOUR situation changes please keep us informed.

If her situation changes???? how??

Is this even close to legal?

the_syco

Are you a "stay at home" daddy, or does the 1yo go to a crèche all day? And does the work involve much overtime?

I'm guessing "if her situation changes" may refer to the mother not being at home with the child much?

Riskymove

shabalala wrote: »

Is this even close to legal?

it's very dodgy imo

of course there is little context here about the type of job or hours etc.

Mrs OBumble

It's illegal, 100%.

Totally not up to them to judge your wifes personal circumstances and whether she is able to do the job.

Is there any chance that the voicemail was a "joke" from someone else? Hard to believe that a company would say something that stupid on voicemail.

ABajaninCork

Did your wife keep the voicemail, OP?

SCOOP 64

Strange reply, could have just said, you have been unsuccessfully on this occasion, without mentioning your personal circumstances., stupid thing to say.

krankykitty

If the message was for real that company could be in trouble. Call the Equality Authority for advice.. Save the voice mail as evidence. How stupid of whoever left that message

Mr.Boots

That's not right!
Unless the employer was looking after her own interests ......like the job involved clearing land mines or something :0
Maybe take it that she dodged a bullet, sounds like a shower of twats.
Move on.

blindsider

This is clearly one of the 9 grounds for discrimination - Family.

http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=12823&ecategory=12826&doclistid=12828&language=EN&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are

From your post, you seem to suggest that your wife would have been offered the job, but for your child - this is discrimination.

How did the employer know you have a child? Did they ask, or did your wife volunteer the information?

If they asked, then they have really blotted their copybook - if your wife volunteered the info, then she shouldn't have - it's none of their business if you have 0, 1 or 20 kids. It's still discrimination though.

I would do 2 things:

1. Transcribe the voice-mail, and get someone to witness it - or save it (somehow) to e.g. an mp3 player

2. Suggest your wife calls the HR Manager and says: "Hi - I got your voice-mail, and I think there has been a misunderstanding. I'm really interested in the job - my child is not a concern, and will not impact on my performance. Can we meet to discuss?"
In the meeting, I'd be (really nicely) pushing for the job, while explaining clearly that your child is none of their business. Any HR Manager worth their salt will deal with this quickly - they'll know where it could go.

If they refuse to meet, I'd ring the Equality Authority - the link above gives details...

As a last resort, I'd get official - but it's a long and difficult road - your wife would get very small compensation - and the moral high ground doesn't pay the bills unfortunately.

murphym7

Pretty shocking that 1) they seem to be regretting your wife because of your family situation and 2) they were dumb enough to leave a recorded message saying that. Clear case here.

bijou

blindsider wrote: »

This is clearly one of the 9 grounds for discrimination - Family.

http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=12823&ecategory=12826&doclistid=12828&language=EN&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are

That's terrible. I hope you kept the voice mail. As mentioned transfer it to an MP3/audio file and ask for advice. What was the job??

I wish I'd have known about the above 9 grounds..... Was interviewed once a long while back and was told "You'll never get work here because you have a UK accent and the Brits are too harsh when dealing with customers".

Jim2007

shabalala wrote: »

Is this even close to legal?

Put all the legal indignation aside for a while, because recruitment is all about discrimination regardless of what some people would have you believe! It is about picking the person whom you feel is the best person for the job and calls for you to discriminate between people, period!

So the interview went well on both sides and the employer is interested in your wife, but they have a concern and they have been open about it. As I see it you have got three choices:

- Go back to them and discuss it further to see if you can reach common ground on a workable solution.

- Go back and explore other possible opportunities with them, 'cause they clearly think your wife is someone worth having on board. Failing that perhaps they can provide an introduction to other potential employers.

- Slam the door shut, make a complaint and have the satisfaction of knowing that someone's nukkles were wrapped...

If the objective is to land a position, then slamming the door shut on someone who is clearly interested in you does not seem to be a very productive way to go about it!

dilallio

Sorry Jim but your reply beggars belief!

There is a big difference between legal discrimination & illegal discrimination.
FYI - This is illegal discrimination!
If an organisation thinks is ok to discriminate illegally, who's to say they also don't mind 'bending' rules about working hours, wages, and working conditions. Should we all take a nicey-nicey approach and hope that it will all work out in the end? I don't think so.

They have already told her No.
Are you suggesting that she ignores this and approach them again??? This could easily be construed as harrassment.

runawaybishop

Discrimination is a specific legal term and there is no such thing as legal discrimination.

Kenny Logins

Was there any mention in the interview of something like 'I have a small child so I can't do late evenings or short notice etc. etc.'?

Ann Landers

Jim2007 wrote: »

Put all the legal indignation aside for a while, because recruitment is all about discrimination regardless of what some people would have you believe! It is about picking the person whom you feel is the best person for the job and calls for you to discriminate between people, period!

Yeah, but putting it in words is immensely stupid.

seamus

Jim2007 wrote: »

If the objective is to land a position, then slamming the door shut on someone who is clearly interested in you does not seem to be a very productive way to go about it!

An interview is as much about assessing the company as a fit for you, as it is about the company assessing you as a fit for them.

Do you really think a company which is stupid enough to reject someone on the basis of having a child and stupid enough to put that "in writing", is going to lead to a happy and productive working relationship?

If someone were to go back and try to negotiate their way in after being rejected in this way, then they'd be an even bigger fool.

Make a complaint to the equality authority, ensure this company gets rightly and severely slapped for their stupidity and be glad that you weren't offered a job with them. If their HR people are willing to break the law blatantly and officially, then who knows what other illegal work practices are going on in there.

Tar.Aldarion

equality authority and they should get dealt with or you could even get a payout? I'm not sure how that works. I would think they would get a hefty fine.

Was gobsmacked reading that.

Jim2007

dilallio wrote: »

Sorry Jim but your reply beggars belief!

There is a big difference between legal discrimination & illegal discrimination.
FYI - This is illegal discrimination!
If an organisation thinks is ok to discriminate illegally, who's to say they also don't mind 'bending' rules about working hours, wages, and working conditions. Should we all take a nicey-nicey approach and hope that it will all work out in the end? I don't think so.

They have already told her No.
Are you suggesting that she ignores this and approach them again??? This could easily be construed as harrassment.

You are very inexperienced, if you thing people will go against their own preferences when it comes to selecting whom they intend to employ.

In this particular case the company could have simply closed the door, but they did not, in fact they indicated that they are still interested in this person... It is up to the to decide what to do next...

Mrs OBumble

runawaybishop wrote: »

Discrimination is a specific legal term and there is no such thing as legal discrimination.

Links please ...

Jim2007

seamus wrote: »

Do you really think a company which is stupid enough to reject someone on the basis of having a child and stupid enough to put that "in writing", is going to lead to a happy and productive working relationship?

If someone were to go back and try to negotiate their way in after being rejected in this way, then they'd be an even bigger fool.

I'm over 50 and I have mobility issues which requires me to use a walking stick to get around, so I'm not a good candidate when it comes to the jobs market!

A year a go I was unemployed and seeking work, so I was doing the interview rounds. One of the companies I interviewed at came to say that while I was an interesting candidate, they had two concerns - the fact that I would be 20+ years older than the rest of the team and my mobility. Now I could have gone off in huff, but I did not... Instead I went back and had another chat - today I hold a senior technical position at that company and it is one of the best companies I've worked for in a long time.

Only the OP can gauge how the relationship developed during the interview and if it is worth following up on. But if it was me, going off in a huff would not be my first thought.

runawaybishop

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Links please ...

I don't believe you cant google the equality act yourself. If you have a point you'd like to make please make it.

Jim2007

Ann Landers wrote: »

Yeah, but putting it in words is immensely stupid.

From a legal point of view yes, but if the interviewer built up a good rapture with the candidate and has expectations of still recruiting the candidate, perhaps they felt they could speak freely..... It is difficult to judge when you are not there.

Where I live such frank discussions between employers and candidates would not be at all unusual.

blindsider

Jim2007 wrote: »

From a legal point of view yes, but if the interviewer built up a good rapture with the candidate and has expectations of still recruiting the candidate, perhaps they felt they could speak freely..... It is difficult to judge when you are not there.

Where I live such frank discussions between employers and candidates would not be at all unusual.

Jim - if you live in Switzerland, I can understand how you'd make such points - Swiss law is completely different from EU law, which we are subject to. Discrimination is clearly and carefully defined.

this might help you to understand: http://www.equality.ie/en/

In the EU, your approach would land you in very hot water, very quickly.

BTW- what do you mean my 'rapture'? Did you mean rapport?

Axiomatic

Employment Equality Act, 1998 (Ireland)

PART II

Discrimination: General Provisions


Introductory


Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.


6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.


(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—


(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),


(b) that they are of different marital status (in this Act referred to as “the marital status ground”),


(c) that one has family status and the other does not (in this Act referred to as “the family status ground”),


(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (in this Act referred to as “the sexual orientation ground”),


(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (in this Act referred to as “the religion ground”),


(f) that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as “the age ground”),


(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as “the disability ground”),


(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”),


(i) that one is a member of the traveller community and the other is not (in this Act referred to as “the traveller community ground”).


(3) Where—


(a) a person has attained the age of 65 years, or


(b) a person has not attained the age of 18 years,


then, subject to section 12 (3), treating that person more favourably or less favourably than another (whatever that other person's age) shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.


(4) The Minister shall review the operation of this Act, within 2 years of the date of the coming into operation of this section, with a view to assessing whether there is a need to add to the discriminatory grounds set out in this section.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0021/sec0006.html#sec6

Jim2007

blindsider wrote: »

Jim - if you live in Switzerland, I can understand how you'd make such points - Swiss law is completely different from EU law, which we are subject to. Discrimination is clearly and carefully defined.

this might help you to understand: http://www.equality.ie/en/

Actually I studied Labour Law and EU in Ireland before I moved over here

And actually when it comes to legal system, Ireland & UK are the odd ones out - you have common law while the rest of us have civil law, including Switzerland. One of the big differences is that financial compensation is restricted to actual monetary losses incurred.

There is also much less labour law, we have no concept of unfair dismissal, as long as the employer follows the notice period in the contract they can terminate you for no reason. Germany does have the concept, but no right to financial compensation, only reinstatement, and so on.