The importance of a well-documented recruitment process is demonstrated in the employment tribunal decisions of Mehenni v Circle Anglia Ltd and Bowden v XC Trains Ltd.
Mehenni v Circle Anglia Ltd
M is of Algerian origin and he was among 179 applicants shortlisted for a customer service role. In order to shortlist applicants, two managers assessed the applications by reference to four objective criteria corresponding with the requirements of the role.
In reaching their decision, the managers were not provided with any of the details of the applicants’ equal opportunity monitoring data. The manager compared the details of the role with the applications and formed a decision based on suitability for the post. The outcome for each candidate was recorded on a spreadsheet. M was not invited for an interview and he alleged race discrimination as a result.
The tribunal found that the information collated by Circle Anglia Ltd during the recruitment process supported a fair recruitment process based on the specific requirements for the post. There was no evidence of discrimination against M. During the tribunal hearing, M was unable to prove that he held the skill set required for the position and, by contract, the successful candidate held relevant experience for the role.
The tribunal found that Circle Anglia Ltd had followed a fair, transparent and objective selection process and M’s claim was rejected. M was ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Bowden v XC Trains Ltd
B is disabled and he applied for a number of jobs with XC Trains Ltd. In response to one of the applications, B received a rejection letter stating that he would not be invited to interview because of the high standard of other applications received.
B also applied for a customer service role, but he was not shortlisted. None of the shortlisted candidates were recruited to the role and the position was advertised again but none of the original applicants for the job were considered.
B requested feedback on why he had been unsuccessful but he did not receive a reply. B submitted a claim for direct disability discrimination.
At the tribunal hearing, XC Trains Ltd denied that they had discriminated against B. However, the witness evidence given was found to be contradictory and the tribunal also noted that the company had not responded to a discrimination questionnaire submitted by B after he had lodged his claim at the employment tribunal.
The employment tribunal highlighted the employer’s failure to keep adequate written records of its recruitment processes. In particular, the employment tribunal notes paragraph 16.44 of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Employment statutory code of practice, which advises employers to “keep records that will allow them to justify each decision and the process by which it was reached and to respond to any complaints of discrimination.”
The employment tribunal upheld B’s claim for direct disability discrimination. Although the employment tribunal observed that there was no clear evidence of discrimination, the absence of clear records and the inconsistent evidence given regarding the decision not to employ B were held in B’s favour.
These cases highlight the importance of having a clear and well documented recruitment process and the importance of responding to unsuccessful candidates to avoid leaving open the inference that decisions are discriminatory.
For more employment law advice or to comment on this article contact us to speak to a member of our employment law team.