Pre-employment assessments must be relevant: Tribunal
From Recruiter daily
|
.jpg)
Diane Rumley, Manager Workforce
|
This article highlights the need to be careful in using any pre-employment
assessments and to ensure they are specific to the job.
Medical and other assessments carried out during the recruitment process
must be relevant to the job, a tribunal has highlighted in compensating an
unsuccessful candidate for discrimination.
The candidate at the centre of the case had been driving buses since the
1960s for a SA-based transport company Serco. He, along with about 600 other
former Serco employees, applied to work as a bus operator with the new
contract-holder, Torrens Transit.
|
The recruitment process included a functional capacity assessment for all
applicants who had previously made a workers' compensation claim or reported
an injury, and involved exercises to test the applicants' strength, range of
movement and fitness. The occupational therapist conducting the assessment
found the driver failed to meet the inherent physical requirements for the
position, and Torrens Transit advised him that his application was
unsuccessful. Specifically, he had a restricted range of movement, low grip
strength and poor back fitness.
But the Tribunal found Torrens Transit had no information or advice that
allowed it to make such conclusions.
It noted that the results of the tests were reported in an "ambiguous"
manner, and that the assessors didn't take into account that at the time of
the assessment the candidate had a knee-sprain injury that caused some of
his limitations, but from which he had fully recovered shortly after.
And importantly, the employer had not established a connection between the
tests and its conclusion that the driver would not be able to work without
endangering people or respond to emergencies.
The Tribunal ordered Torrens Transit to pay the driver compensation for his
lost earnings and expenses (amounting to $27,000).
For more information contact Diane Rumley on 6223 3055.
Back to top
National Code of Practice for the Building and
Construction Industry
|
Dain Cairns, HR Consultant
|
For many businesses working in the Building and Construction
Industry, the Australian Government’s National Code of Practice (the Code) and
Guidelines (the Guidelines) may not have been a big consideration in the past,
however with the Economic Stimulus Package injecting a large amount of funds
into the Building and Construction Industry, the Code and Guidelines have become a major factor effecting nearly
all businesses.
All businesses who have applied, tendered, contracted, or
sub-contracted for a Government project in the Industry are required to be
compliant with the Code and Guidelines. |
What are the Code and Guidelines?
The Code and Guidelines outline the responsibilities of
Australian Government agencies as clients, and the responsibilities of project
managers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, related entities, industrial
associations and employers in the construction industry.
The Guidelines have recently been revised to reflect the
introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009 and suggestions made by the
Honourable Murray Wilcox QC in his recent report, Transition to Fair Work
Australia for the Building and Construction Industry. Extensive
consultations have also been undertaken by the Government with all major
stakeholders including employee and employer associations, major contractors as
well as state and territory governments.
The Government believes the Guidelines will assist in
encouraging lawful behaviour in the industry for the benefit of all participants
and will support productivity in the sector.
What does this mean for me?
If you don’t want to miss out on your share of the Economic
Stimulus Package through sub-contracting to any Federal Government project, then
you need to be compliant. Searson Buck, through our Workforce division, is able to on-hire staff to your
workplace for these types of projects as we are Code Compliant.
For more information contact Dain Cairns on 6223 3055.
Back to top
By:
Rhiannon Elston - June 24, 2009
Job insecurity is driving workers
in Australia to clock up extra hours to stay employed according to new research.
A survey of 436 people by
recruitment firm Robert Walters found 53 per cent of those polled in Australia
were coming in earlier and working back later than they were before the economic
downturn.
Of those who said they were now
working more hours 40 per cent claimed to be putting in an extra eight to ten
hours per week.
The global study included results
from 18 countries and found Australian employees were putting in an average
amount of overtime compared to worldwide results.
Australian workers are better off
than US workers, with 69 per cent of those surveyed in the United States working
overtime thanks to the recession.
Workers in France and Switzerland
were less affected by the downturn, with more than 65 per cent of each workforce
claiming to work the same hours as usual, the survey shows.
James Nicholson, managing
director of Robert Walters Australia, says some of the respondents were working
longer hours because they had taken on the workloads of former co-workers who
had left through redundancies or resignations from roles they were not replaced.
“Many people feel that by putting
in more hours, they will be less likely to lose their jobs should further cost
cutting prove necessary,” says Mr Nicholson.
For workers, the long term impact
of too much overtime could lead to stress, illness or relationship breakdowns.
“It most definitely can have a
negative effect, especially because the last six-12 months people haven’t really
been in the mindset to enjoy their work,” says Mr Nicholson. “It has every
possibility to lead to stress and other health factors.”
Overworked staff also a poses a
risk for employers in that a workplace full of unhappy staff could be bad for
business, warns Mr Nicholson.
“Employers do need to be a bit
cautious to the fact that during a downturn the way they manage that process
could come back to them later on.”
Back to top
When you can't keep the people, keep their
knowledge  Lisa
Halloran, Retention Partners www.retentionpartners.com.au.
|
.jpg)
Anna Gledhill, Manager HR Services
|
I thought this article by Lisa was a timely reminder to ensure you protect
your company's knowledge.
Every employee will
ultimately leave their organisation, but there's no reason why their knowledge
has to walk out the door with them, says retention expert Lisa Halloran.
Although HR practitioners are primarily concerned with keeping
people
in an organisation, it's important to remember that each one will leave
eventually - "whether they resign, retire or the bus hits them" - and to take
steps beforehand to reduce the risk of losing their knowledge, she says.
|
HR should particularly focus on keeping the knowledge of high-value employees,
who Halloran refers to as "bombs" (because "when they go off, they cause a lot
of damage"), as these are the workers whose unplanned departure can have the
worst impact on an organisation.
"It's about risk reduction, and risk management."
Halloran, the director of
Retention
Partners, says there are
a number of initiatives that help employers store the knowledge of their
workforce while they are still employed so it can be used after they've left,
including:
-
Documentation
- where a job is primarily process-related - that is, it involves "steps" -
the steps should be documented where possible in a way that new employees
will find easy to follow. "To document things or have process manuals is
brilliant if the same thing happens over and over again."
Halloran cautions that "not many people like documenting what they do", so
employers should consider engaging someone to follow the worker around and
record their activities. That job is specifically suited to science-based
people and linear thinkers who understand the value of processes, she says.
-
Shadowing
- in many cases, an employee's value to an organisation lies not in the
process they use but their innate skills and the strength of relationships
that they build up over time.
"Obviously this doesn't lend itself to any form of documentation at all, but
the organisation is heavily exposed if they lose that person - they could
lose a major client," Halloran says.
Organisations that rely heavily on relationships
should have a shadowing arrangement, she says, where "if someone's going to
a major meeting with a client, they have to take another person with them".
Employers should ensure clients regularly interact with more than one
representative and "get to know some of the faces" of the organisation, if
not through business meetings then less formal lunches.
-
Video
- this idea came from a Retention Partners employee whose immigrant
grandmother wanted to pass on recipes that had never been written down. As
she didn't know the exact amount of ingredients required (it was more "a
pinch of this, a dash of that"), she used video to record her putting the
recipes together.
Halloran says a large open-cut mining company used this technique on a rare
occasion when a massive, multi-million-dollar piece of equipment fell into a
pit. The organisation set up at least 30 cameras at the site to record
various attempts to retrieve the machinery over a period of weeks so that
the techniques used could be viewed again in the event of a repeat incident.
It also uses video to record tasks performed by people with specific
knowledge so that when the need arises, other employees know what to do, she
adds.
"Where a person owns a particular piece of knowledge that can be filmed,
[employers should] create a store of knowledge relating to that process."
-
Promotion criteria
- some organisations ensure they retain knowledge and reduce their
recruitment costs by requiring managers to develop their subordinates.
"The deal is you will never get promoted unless at least two people behind
you could stand up into your job. It changes the dynamics dramatically so
that rather than saying 'I'm not going to help these people because they're
my future competitors', they say 'I'm never going to be freed from this job
unless I can put up a couple of people up to the recruitment process who
stand a pretty good chance'," Halloran says.
It might be that the replacement will need six months' more development and
training to step into the role of an exiting manager, but this reduces the
impact to their organisation of losing their knowledge in its entirety, she
says.
"Get people coming up through the organisation to add more value as they're
coming through. Replacements might need more development, more training, and
more time, but you're in a better position to fill that gap than if you just
let managers go without grooming the people behind them. Nobody's got enough
'fat' to have a little 2IC, but it makes managers deliberately aware of how
they manage their assets so that they've got people to fill their shoes."
-
Post-employment employment
- when high-value employees leave to work for another organisation,
employers should strike a rate to "buy them back", Halloran says, for
example for five hours a month over a six-month period.
"Whatever that rate is, the benefit is going to be a lot better. Get them to
have lunch with their replacement and talk to them about 'XYZ'. It extends
access to that person's knowledge if you haven't taken steps to secure it
before they go."
-
"Council of elders"
- employers facing high retirement rates in the coming years should consider
forming a "council of elders" - "retirees who, for instance, know what
happened in 1974 and have really great depth of knowledge", Halloran says.
"Bring them back in formally, once a month, or get them to help out on a
phone call, or have an ad hoc lunch with up and coming youngsters, all on
very strict criteria," she recommends.
"You might have to pay for fantastic lunch once a month or whatever it may
be, but it's a low cost to keep that information."
-
Elite cohorts
- where the value of retiring employees' knowledge is great, employers can
recognise them in other ways that foster its retention, Halloran says.
She cites the example of a shipping company that was desperate to retain the
skills of its skippers and masters - people who knew their knowledge was
powerful and earned through years of very hard work, and were reluctant to
pass it on - who were approaching retirement.
The global organisation invented the "master mentor" program, which at any
point in time has just five "masters" who must each take two people under
their wing. There are strict criteria around the skills that must be passed
on and the timeframe for doing it, and the masters are recognised in return
with photos in the foyers of all the company's offices; first-class flights
to Scandinavia for the annual board meeting; and trips to New York for lunch
with the chairman.
"Effectively the organisation is bowing down before the immense skill that
these men have, and in return they're saying 'pay back now'. It's quite a
wonderful way of saying to these people, 'your skills are so important and
we're going to celebrate and recognise that, and this is the way we're going
to do it', rather than saying, 'write down everything you know, or else'.
"It's not low-cost, but certainly compared to loss of that enormous depth of
knowledge, it's essential."
Halloran says
it's "risk management 101" that if employees are highly valued for their
contribution they should be retained, but failing that, it is their knowledge
that must be kept.
"In HR everyone is so swamped with the immediacies of life that it sometimes
takes a little bit of a shake-up to stand back and have a look at some of these
bigger picture ideas," she says, but adds that initiatives can be implemented
"virtually instantly to protect your organisation and lower your recruitment
costs".
For more information contact Anna Gledhill on 6223 3055.
Back to top
Pitfalls for
the "uninitiated" using psychometric testing
By Christopher St Clair of
PsychWorks Partnership
|
.jpg)
Rob Howes, Recruitment Manager |
Rob Howes agrees Psychometric tests are
the best predictor of a potential employee's performance, but they are often
misused in the recruitment process.
When used properly, says Christopher St
Clair of PsychWorks Partnership, cognitive tests predict around 30-to-35 per
cent of individual difference in an employee's performance, "making them simply
the best predictive differentiator for performance".
(The next-best predictor of performance is behavioural interviewing, ahead of
personality profiling, reference checks and "intuition, which is about the
lowest predictor of getting the right candidate", he says.) |
But for the "uninitiated" in psychometric testing, St Clair says, "there's lots
of pitfalls".
First, he says, employers often interpret percentile scores by simply comparing
them between candidates, so they might favour a candidate who scores in the
sixtieth percentile for numeric reasoning - one of the typical measures, along
with verbal and abstract reasoning - over one who scores in the fortieth
percentile.
This is actually "quite a fine-grain distinction", St Clair says, "because it's
all about relevance rather than saying 'that's a bad score for someone to have'.
"For example, someone might score in the thirtieth percentile for numerical
reasoning... and that may not be a real concern unless they're doing a
significant amount of budgets and numerical-type activities."
Employers can also misinterpret - or too narrowly interpret - the weaknesses or
developmental areas highlighted in psychometric reports. "They might see these
results and... isolate statements without seeing the broader context of the
report, and focus on one or two things that might exclude a candidate when in
fact those things might not be relevant, or they could be placing undue emphasis
on those things."
Employers that use "off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-all" assessments risk deterring
candidates who perceive that the tests don't directly relate to the job they're
applying for, or that the tests are pitched too high or too low for their job
level. St Clair notes: "For an apprentice you might use a numerical test, but
for a financial controller you'd want a different one. It's about getting the
right level of testing as well as the test itself for that particular
construct."
Get better
results
The
first step to conducting effective psychometric testing is to "get the test
battery right", St Clair says. An organisational psychologist can recommend
which test to use once they understand the job description and competencies that
underly the particular job.
He warns that although some testing providers require administrators to become
accredited, others are less strict, allowing "anyone in the HR field" to use
them. He says that "unless an organisation has an organisational psychologist on
board, then using internal people to interpret the test or to give really good
feedback to the line is probably not a very wise thing to do."
HR should take a broad-based view of the test report, he says, and incorporate
the results with their observations of the candidate during interviews as well
as any findings from their reference checks, so they are "not placing undue
influence on the psychometrics but certainly using them as part of, rather than
the,
determining factor in the selection process".
When a test finding contradicts an interviewer's own observations and
perceptions of a candidate, they should delve deeper into the issue using
behavioural interviewing, he says, and reference checks. "Sometimes a candidate
appears 'on the ball', and says all the right things [during interviews]... but
a lot of candidates can be very well rehearsed in impression-managing an
interview, and other candidates may be perhaps a little bit nervous or not as
forward in [promoting] their abilities. Therefore if it's not a behaviour or
targeted selection interview, the interviewer may not be gleaning the
information they need to make a fair decision. The interviewer will walk away
with the wrong impression if it's not a well-constructed competency interview."
For example, he says, an interviewer might not get a true picture of a
candidate's emotional functioning in an interview, but a test might reveal that
they work best in a structured environment, while in an unstructured or highly
fluid environment they can be susceptible to high levels of stress, worry or
frustration. "So the questions would be around the types of situations they've
faced, and how they've responded to those types of environments that might
elicit those stress reactions."
HR should consider whether some of the candidate's identified weaknesses can be
turned into developmental areas, or managed, St Clair says. "Sometimes people
feel 'gosh, that's a really bad thing to have in our organisation', when it's
simply something that a competent manager might be able to work through with the
individual."
Finally, St Clair says candidates should receive quality feedback about their
test results, but it should
never
come from a recruiter. "The employer shouldn't make any comments related to the
report, but I think all psychologists should offer verbal feedback to candidates
regardless of if they've been successful or not in obtaining the position."
Feedback to successful candidates should not be provided until
after
they've started in the job, he warns, "because that can really change the
negotiation stakes. If a candidate's done really well, then they might use that
as leverage [to negotiate a higher salary]".
For more information contact Rob Howes on 6223 3055.
Back to top
|
