Employers are often depicted in the media as the villains when it comes to employment disputes. This is clearly not always the case.

However they do need to have robust procedures in place when deciding on which applicants to interview or select for employment.

This tribunal case from last year clearly shows the benefits of having in place good procedures together with full and complete notes about the selection process when considering applicants for employment.

Kpakio v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd

Mr Kpakio submitted two separate applications for a vacancy as a customer services advisor. The first was in his own name and correctly confirmed his ethnic origin as black African; the second was made under a false pseudonym (‘Craig Owen’), a white British applicant.

His application under his own name was rejected, but the second (Mr Owen’s) was put through to the next (telephone interview) stage. Mr Kpakio brought a claim for direct race discrimination and claimed compensation but then requested an order for an apology and a job offer (something the tribunal could not award anyway).

Mr Kpakio claimed that the different treatment was due to the different ethnic origins, but could not show evidence that this was the case. And fortunately for Virgin, they had clear selection criteria and a systematic approach to their recruitment. There were significant differences between the two applications: Mr Kpakio had a degree but his CV did not meet the published criteria for the vacancy; Mr Owen was less qualified academically but he worked on a supermarket checkout and had more relevant work experience. The applications were assessed by two different HR managers, neither of whom saw the equality monitoring forms which had been removed prior to short-listing.

How many employers have “a clear selection criteria and a systematic approach to their recruitment”?

Guest blogger: Mark Snelham, Head of Management Liability, Hiscox