Recruitment Agencies

chops018

Can recruitment agencies refuse to deal with a person if they are not a native English speaker and they do not have a qualification to show they can speak it fluently?

I heard some places charge foreigners to do an exam to show they can speak it.

I mean is there not some sort of equality or linguistic discrimination there?

I know there would be certain jobs where the operations would require some sort of fluency of the language but for recruiters to refuse to take a CV altogether, and not try find someone a job based on their qualifications and past experience? They could have excellent English from their own studies and living in an English speaking country.

UBERTILT

chops018 wrote: »

Can recruitment agencies refuse to deal with a person if they are not a native English speaker and they do not have a qualification to show they can speak it fluently?

I heard some places charge foreigners to do an exam to show they can speak it.

I mean is there not some sort of equality or linguistic discrimination there?

I know there would be certain jobs where the operations would require some sort of fluency of the language but for recruiters to refuse to take a CV altogether, and not try find someone a job based on their qualifications and past experience? They could have excellent English from their own studies and living in an English speaking country.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. A recruitment agency is not a Fas office and they can choose to promote or represent who they wish. It's difficult enough to get the client to pay fees and impossible if you introduce/promote poorly qualified candidates.

pedroeibar1

chops018 wrote: »

Can recruitment agencies refuse to deal with a person if they are not a native English speaker and they do not have a qualification to show they can speak it fluently?

Qué?

coylemj

They can discriminate all they like based on language - you could set up a recruitment agency in Castlebar that only dealt with IT people who spoke French if you chose to.

What's your point?

Greenmachine

If the employer has a particular requirement then the recruiter needs to provide candidate who meet the specific requirements.

MarkAnthony

Come on now, people are being obtuse. It's obvious what the OP meant.

If I rock up to a recruitment agency with my CV with perfect English can they refuse to accept the CV based solely on the fact that I'm a non-native English speaker. A secondary question was can they do that on the basis of not sitting an exam to prove I'm fluent.

Given the French speaking IT agency, fair enough but what if I only deal with French people?

I'm not really in a position to answer, personally I think it's discriminatory but that aside it's not a stupid question.

davo10

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Come on now, people are being obtuse. It's obvious what the OP meant.

If I rock up to a recruitment agency with my CV with perfect English can they refuse to accept the CV based solely on the fact that I'm a non-native English speaker. A secondary question was can they do that on the basis of not sitting an exam to prove I'm fluent.

Given the French speaking IT agency, fair enough but what if I only deal with French people?

I'm not really in a position to answer, personally I think it's discriminatory but that aside it's not a stupid question.

So, if you needed a legal secretary and required applicants to be able to speak English, using your rationale, that would be discriminatory?

Before the agency can promote an applicant in an English speaking country, it would stand to reason that they would want to know if the applicant can speak English.

chops018

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Come on now, people are being obtuse. It's obvious what the OP meant.

If I rock up to a recruitment agency with my CV with perfect English can they refuse to accept the CV based solely on the fact that I'm a non-native English speaker. A secondary question was can they do that on the basis of not sitting an exam to prove I'm fluent.

Given the French speaking IT agency, fair enough but what if I only deal with French people?

I'm not really in a position to answer, personally I think it's discriminatory but that aside it's not a stupid question.

That's exactly what I meant, thanks!

And yes, I also think the above posters are being obtuse.

Obviously I realise for a job like a call centre there may need to be a certain level of English proved. And an IT Specialist required to speak French will also have to prove this.

But I'm talking about general jobs - administration etc, and the recruiters wouldn't deal with say a person who lives here for years but isn't native, and might not have an English exam, or a person who lives here a year who does but they say they are not here long enough and need to do the recruiters own exam.

All this before they will even consider sending their CV's to potential employers. For any sort of job. I realise, as stated in my OP, there are certain jobs which will have certain requirments.

davo10 wrote: »

So, if you needed a legal secretary and required applicants to be able to speak English, using your rationale, that would be discriminatory?

Before the agency can promote an applicant in an English speaking country, it would stand to reason that they would want to know if the applicant can speak English.

I am talking about someone who is not a native English speaker, and may have near perfect English, oral and written, some with their own exams to prove this, some not.

Yet there if a recruitment agecny refused to take a CV based on the above, the reason being that they had to do the recruitment agency or it's agent/intermediary's own English exam, which costs €50.00, before they will take their CV. So basically they are making more money off them doing an exam. Even though their English could be perfect.

I was asking if they can do this?

davo10

chops018 wrote: »

That's exactly what I meant, thanks!



I am talking about someone who is not a native English speaker, and may have near perfect English, oral and written, some with their own exams to prove this, some not.

Yet there if a recruitment agecny refused to take a CV based on the above, the reason being that they had to do the recruitment agency or it's agent/intermediary's own English exam, which costs €50.00, before they will take their CV. So basically they are making more money off them doing an exam. Even though their English could be perfect.

I was asking if they can do this?

Or assuring that before the applicants cv is put forward by the agency, they can actually speak English rather than just claim they can. It would be unprofessional for a recruitment agency to send a foreign national to interview only to find out that the applicant's English was not as good as claimed.

As an employer who has on occasion used recruitment agencies, I wouldn't be at all impressed if they sent an applicant to me who claimed to have excellent English but was actually unable to hold a conversation in english.

Uno my Uno.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Come on now, people are being obtuse. It's obvious what the OP meant.

If I rock up to a recruitment agency with my CV with perfect English can they refuse to accept the CV based solely on the fact that I'm a non-native English speaker. A secondary question was can they do that on the basis of not sitting an exam to prove I'm fluent.

Given the French speaking IT agency, fair enough but what if I only deal with French people?

I'm not really in a position to answer, personally I think it's discriminatory but that aside it's not a stupid question.

The Situation as outlined by the OP is clearly discriminatory, the real question is if it is a form of discrimination which is prohibited in law such as under the Equal Status Acts.

I think its arguable that it is. If it is a blanket discrimination that all Foreign Nationals will not be considered unless they sit the exam or provide certification of their fluency then it could be found to be discrimination, not on the basis of their fluency but their origin which is a prohibited form of discrimination.

234

Nobody is questioning the fact that jobs might legitimately require applicants to have a high level of spoken and written English; the question is whether the manner in which this recruitment agency is ensuring that this requirement is fulfilled is discriminatory.

Since the agency don't seem to be interested in factual linguistic ability, simply a particular kind of proof (i.e. exams) this seems to be arbitrary and possibly a cloak for indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination is a recognised concept in equality law. You can simply adopt a measure that on its face is neutral but in effect discriminates against a on a prohibited basis.

Whether this is in fact what is going on here is a matter of fact that won't be resolved on a discussion board. But there is no substance in blunt assertions that there can be no discrimination here because some jobs have language requirements. This is to miss the issue: the means by which these requirements are complied with.

MarkAnthony

davo10 wrote: »

So, if you needed a legal secretary and required applicants to be able to speak English, using your rationale, that would be discriminatory?

Before the agency can promote an applicant in an English speaking country, it would stand to reason that they would want to know if the applicant can speak English.

But how do I know an Irish person has the required English Language skills? Or an English Person or an American? This is the point. One has to look at the CV and interview them.

One could perhaps ask for X qualification in English but you can't ask the non nationals for that qualification and not ask nationals for it; that's discriminatory. Obviously in the case of a legal secretary that's very feasible and probably desirable. In a builder/factory worker/shop worker or even an IT engineer, not so sure.

BattleCorp

Non legal opinion here.

I think the job agency wants something in writing to prove the person has a good understanding of English.

Health and safety training has to be delivered in a manner that is likely to be understood by the employee. The onus is on the employer to ensure this.

If a non - native speaker has a workplace accident, he could possibly claim he didn't understand the training.

What good would "shur yer man's English seemed fine to me" be in court?

That would be reason enough for me to request written confirmation of the employee's English language skills.

pedroeibar1

Communication skills are a basic requirement for everyday business; if a person wants a job that involves working in a foreign language, requesting proof of competency in that language is reasonable. A copy of a degree, or practicing certificate, or diploma, or whatever can reasonably be requested to show industry-specific skills, why not a ‘Business English’ certificate? Requesting proof of competency is part of the weeding-out process, it is not being discriminatory. Asking applicants to sit a recruiter's exam @ €50 is a scam and it should not be countenanced. I'd suggest that under 'duty of care' any employer who ignored language competency/proficiency would be wide open to an action on H&S grounds should an accident occur as a result of misunderstood English.
(Judging by the level of English grammar and sentence construction in many posts above, soon it will be necessary to ask native English speakers to provide proof of competency also!)

pedroeibar1

@battlecorp - snap!