Suspected discrimination in connection with recruitment of assembly workers (TAS 303/2021, issued on 23 November, 2021)

Woman A asked the Ombudsman for Equality to determine whether she had been discriminated against in a manner prohibited by the Act on Equality between Women and Men (609/1986, hereinafter the Equality Act) in connection with recruitment of assemblers. The job in question was leased work acquired through a recruitment agency that proposed potential assemblers to be interviewed by the hiring company and acted as the employer of the recruited assemblers. 

Woman A and her husband B were employees of the same recruitment agency and applied for the same position of an assembler by submitting their CVs and recorded video interviews. A and B had similar work and training background. The recruitment agency recommended both of them for the job.

Man B was invited to a job interview and was offered a job. Woman A was not invited to a job interview. During the job interview, B asked the hiring company whether they had seen A's job application, and B was told that physically heavy assembly work is not suited for women. B did not accept the job offered to him, because he felt that the hiring company discriminated against A based on her gender. The company hired four men who had significantly less experience than A and B.

The Ombudsman for Equality requested clarification on the matter from both the recruitment agency and the hiring company. The recruitment agency stated that they considered A to be suited for the position of an assembler on the basis of her application and interview. The recruitment agency presented to the hiring company A's CV and video interview, along with those of other applicants', after which the hiring company interviewed the applicants it deemed suitable and decided on the assemblers to hire.

The hiring company stated in its clarification that assembly work is heavy work, and good physical fitness and strength is required from assemblers.  According to the view of the hiring company, the comment they made during B's interview regarding the work not being suited for women was an expression of concern related to the degree of physical difficulty and not discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of the Equality Act. The employer is liable to ensure balancing and prevention of physical strain at work, which is achieved through job rotation at the mast assembly line. It is not possible for the duties of a single assembly line worker to be modified to diverge from the job rotation. 

A had the same experience in demanding assembly work as B. In her response, A stated that the hiring company has not proven that it assessed or compared the required physical fitness and strength of the chosen applicants and A. A noted that the requirement for physical fitness only applied to a fraction of the duties and she would have managed all duties required for the job. There was no test to determine the applicants' level of physical fitness. Therefore, the assessment on A's physical fitness was based solely on an assumption made based on her gender.

The Ombudsman for Equality noted in their statement that the recruitment agency has not acted reprehensibly because the agency proposed A to the hiring company as a suitable applicant. However, the hiring company acted in violation of section 8 of the Equality Act by not inviting the more qualified A to a job interview and failing to assess A's physical fitness and strength.

19.01.2022