On what grounds can you refuse to hire someone ?

OU812

Was reading about the woman who was awarded €30k over on the journal because her employer refused to supply with a chair etc. Which got me thinking about the employment laws.

Someone I know works for a company which is almost 75% female & the boss is upset at the high number of pregnancies which is disrupting his workflow (one girl has has three kids in just under four years & has only been in work for a small number of months, yet he can't hire someone full time to replace her).

Now obviously there's bugger all he can do about it, but I was wondering on what grounds can you not offer someone a job. Obesity? Smoker?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Whatever the hell grounds you bloody well want, one you're the boss. Just don't tell them the real reason.

Stheno

As long as you are not breaking any of the nine grounds for discrimation you can not hire someone for any reason.

The nine areas you cannot use as a reason for not hiring someone are:

• Gender

• Marital status

• Family status

• Sexual orientation

• Religion

• Age

• Disability

• Race/colour/nationality/ethnic or national origins

• Membership of the travelling community.

Wazdakka

Bit of a dodgy one this...

You have to be verrry careful on what grounds you officially refuse a job.
If there's any grounds for a discrimination claim at all, it can be a serious pain in the ass.


If a Pregnant, Black, Disabled, Lesbian, Traveller Woman applies for a job...
Just give it to her..

No matter what job it is...
Even if it's Your job...
Just give it to her.... Seriously..

Gaz

"Membership of the travelling community" --- they apply for jobs ?

whiskeyman

If you don't like the cut of their jib.

Lucifer MorningStar

If a man has long hair

Michael D Not Higgins

I can only assume it's fairly onerous to prove discrimination in the hiring process unless they come right out and say so.

AdolfHipster

Nearly every ground. As long as another reason is used and you don't divulge why you really dont want to hire them. Sad reality with a lot of cases.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Stheno wrote: »

• Gender

Then how come, whenever I go in and apply for a position as a dancer at Lapellos, they have me forcefully escorted from the premises

Sir Arthur Daley

OU812 wrote: »

Someone I know works for a company which is almost 75% female

Do they have a very small tool to make them 25% man?

I Heart Internet

Wazdakka wrote: »

If a Pregnant, Black, Disabled, Lesbian, Traveller Woman applies for a job...
Just give it to her..

No matter what job it is...
Even if it's Your job...
Just give it to her.... Seriously..

It's not as bad as all that. If you or your HR dept does the job RIGHT from the start, with proceedures, assessment criteria, job spec, interview panel, etc. The best person will win out fair and square and you will be on solid ground (that best person may be the Pregnant, Black, Disabled, Lesbian, Traveller Woman....in which case she is the best person for the job).

o1s1n

Lucifer MorningStar wrote: »

If a man has long hair

Never stopped me getting a job :pac:

Actually I do the opposite now and gravitate towards hiring my fellow hairy brethren when interviewing.

I Heart Internet

Statistics show though, that grown men with long hair are more likely to have their wallets on chains in their black jeans. The chains are a hazard when working around machinery.

Smart Bug

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Then how come, whenever I go in and apply for a position as a dancer at Lapellos, they have me forcefully escorted from the premises

It's because you insist on 'trying out' before the interview. And after 37 beers.

Cazzoenorme

Stheno wrote: »

As long as you are not breaking any of the nine grounds for discrimation you can not hire someone for any reason.

The nine areas you cannot use as a reason for not hiring someone are:

• Gender

• Marital status

• Family status

• Sexual orientation

• Religion

• Age

• Disability

• Race/colour/nationality/ethnic or national origins

• Membership of the travelling community.

Well it depends on the job, if a porn producer is looking for an actor with tremendous girth and only one arm and one leg then I believe they should be allowed to discrimanate based upon disability and girthiness in that instance.

AdolfHipster

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Well it depends on the job, if a porn producer is looking for an actor with tremendous girth and only one arm and one leg then I believe they should be allowed to discrimanate based upon disability and girthiness in that instance.

I can only imagine the grounds that someone can be refused in the porn industry:pac:

Lucifer MorningStar

o1s1n wrote: »

Never stopped me getting a job :pac:

Actually I do the opposite now and gravitate towards hiring my fellow hairy brethren when interviewing.

The Backwards Man

Whenever I have had to sack anyone, it has always been because they were 'shíte at their fcuking job'.

Just realised I read the question wrong, I'd refuse to hire someone that wasn't willing to work when I wanted them to work, not when they wanted to.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Whenever I have had to sack anyone, it has always been because they were 'shíte at their fcuking job'... your honour.

Fyp

rawn

A girl I know was fired on the first day of her job in a clothes shop for being too short to reach the "best-selling clothes" on the top shelves.

Yeah, I don't believe her either.

Grayson

CIPD in the UK recommend using a ranking matrix when interviewing. So if you have say 10 prepared questions, you rank each answer out of 5. That way someone can score out of 50 for the interview. You also award marks for previous experience, education etc... So you give a max of 50 marks for that. Yoiu have a scoring guide for both interview and non interview marks so that the marking system is fair.
After interviewing a few people you'll be able to rank their performamce and suitability for the job. Technically the useless ones will score lowest.

It means that if you do refuse someone a job, you can point to this and say they just weren't as good.

Statistically you're also more likely to get better employees.

Ray Palmer

OU812 wrote: »

Was reading about the woman who was awarded €30k over on the journal because her employer refused to supply with a chair etc. Which got me thinking about the employment laws.

Someone I know works for a company which is almost 75% female & the boss is upset at the high number of pregnancies which is disrupting his workflow (one girl has has three kids in just under four years & has only been in work for a small number of months, yet he can't hire someone full time to replace her).

Now obviously there's bugger all he can do about it, but I was wondering on what grounds can you not offer someone a job. Obesity? Smoker?

The woman in question worked for the company for 30years! Her health problems arose as she continued to work there. They failed to stick to promises they made to her. It isn't like they just refused to get her a chair and she brought them to court.

I do think they should have a better plan for maternity allowances so smaller companies can afford to cover the cost and disruption.

I have heard female business owners say they wouldn't hire woman of a certain age due to the likelihood of them getting pregnant and the costs.

If you had a small business with 4 female employees and they all became pregnant at the same time. To keep going you would have to hire 4 other people to do the work and have double wages. It may even be more as certain jobs require specialist skills and you might only be able to get day rate contractors. At that rate it may be better to close the company from a financial point of view.

Arbiter of Good Taste

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Whenever I have had to sack anyone, it has always been because they were 'shíte at their fcuking job'.

Your company sacks people because they are sh1te at their job? I've always wanted to work in a company like that.

The Backwards Man

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Your company sacks people because they are sh1te at their job? I've always wanted to work in a company like that.

We also refuse to hire people that 'want' to work for us. If you want to work here there must be something wrong with your head.

Stheno

Ray Palmer wrote: »

T

If you had a small business with 4 female employees and they all became pregnant at the same time. To keep going you would have to hire 4 other people to do the work and have double wages. It may even be more as certain jobs require specialist skills and you might only be able to get day rate contractors. At that rate it may be better to close the company from a financial point of view.

Why would you have double wages? Employers aren't obliged to pay staff on maternity leave anything

Ray Palmer

Stheno wrote: »

Why would you have double wages? Employers aren't obliged to pay staff on maternity leave anything

You should check that again it isn't all unpaid

ProfessorPlum

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You should check that again it isn't all unpaid

DSW pay for maternity leave. Some employers will 'make up' employees pay, but that is voluntary.

Stheno

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You should check that again it isn't all unpaid

Maternity benefit is paid by the state and some employers top it up to normal salary levels.

Is that what you mean?

Michael D Not Higgins

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You should check that again it isn't all unpaid

"Your entitlement to pay and superannuation during maternity leave depends on the terms of your contract of employment. Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave."
-Citizen's Information

Granted, most contracts will have some top up during maternity leave, but full pay for 6 months will cripple a small business as described above (only 4 female staff). Let's imagine a small café. How likely is it that they have full pay during maternity leave?

Davarus Walrus

You can't openly discriminate, but it's safe enough to not give a reason for not hiring someone.

My mate worked in recruitment for years. Got fairly high up in the recruitment game, as soul-destroying a business as it is. Said he wouldn't hire a recruiter with a Louth or Cork accent as potential customers didn't want to hear someone from those counties try to sell them managed services or the use of contractors.

He would also have lunch with a potential recruiter to see if they were a good fit for the company. He would always ask the lads a few 'off the cuff' questions about the football. If he sussed that they were a Manchester United fan then they weren't getting the job.

Again, appearance is important in the recruitment game, especially if you're trying to place a resource in with a new client. So he'd always silently discriminate based on appearance, dress and looks.

Caliden

Surely if woman in question in the OP is only working for several months over the 4 years while giving birth to her kids she isn't carrying out the requirements of her work?

OP are you leaving out any details?
Can't they just replace her with someone on a contract and when she does return, just move her into a **** hole job and force her out? :pac:

Michael D Not Higgins

Caliden wrote: »

Surely if woman in question in the OP is only working for several months over the 4 years while giving birth to her kids she isn't carrying out the requirements of her work?

OP are you leaving out any details?
Can't they just replace her with someone on a contract and when she does return, just move her into a **** hole job and force her out? :pac:

That's constructive dismissal and would cost them a bleeding fortune in the labour court.

Potatoeman

Give men the same praturnity leave as maturnity leave. Problem solved or doubled.

ProfessorPlum

Caliden wrote: »

Surely if woman in question in the OP is only working for several months over the 4 years while giving birth to her kids she isn't carrying out the requirements of her work?

OP are you leaving out any details?
Can't they just replace her with someone on a contract and when she does return, just move her into a **** hole job and force her out? :pac:

I think the issue for employers is when they're gone, not when they come back.
Glad that you're not in the business of employing people. You sound like a lovely person to work for

NZ_2014

Gaz wrote: »

"Membership of the travelling community" --- they apply for jobs ?

I once somehow accidentally put myself down on a job application form as a "Gypsy or Irish Traveller" - it was one of the options under Ethnicity/Race.

Made it to interview stage.

I should really have clarified that mistake before the interview :pac:

Arthur Beesley

Poor personal hygiene. e.g. if there is a smell of benji off them.

thegreatgonzo

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

a smell of benji off them.

wet dog smell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benji

Arthur Beesley

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

wet dog smell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benji

Exactly.

stefan idiot jones

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Statistics show though, that grown men with long hair are more likely to have their wallets on chains in their black jeans. The chains are a hazard when working around machinery.

Sorry, but I have to correct you there.

It's men who used to have long hair. Now they have goatee beards to compensate for being folically challenged. They have big black boots and flame tattoos just to show that they are still rock 'n' roll.

woodoo

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's not as bad as all that. If you or your HR dept does the job RIGHT from the start, with proceedures, assessment criteria, job spec, interview panel, etc. The best person will win out fair and square and you will be on solid ground (that best person may be the Pregnant, Black, Disabled, Lesbian, Traveller Woman....in which case she is the best person for the job).

Not if she has 3 kids in four years and comes back with baby brain.