MOST of us will be aware of the impending implications facing employers when the new age regulations come into effect in October this year. Some may conclude that they already comply and are in no way ageist in their policies. But can they prove it?

In the recruitment process for example, on what basis do we select potential candidates for interview? If we receive CVs how can we prove that age has had no bearing on our decision to reject a particular application. If a candidate accuses a potential employer of not giving them an interview because of their age, how does the employer demonstrate that it acted fairly when evaluating the original CV?

According to a recent article, the answer is to define clear guidelines based on required competencies of the job vacancy. Once the skills needed to perform the role successfully have been analysed, it is suggested that a rating scale for example, 1-5 for each competency, should be devised showing a clear record of what ratings were awarded and how the decision to interview or reject was made. If any decisions are challenged, employers will then be able to easily demonstrate that there is a consistent fair process in place covering all applications.

Although start and finish dates of jobs and qualifications are commonly provided on CVs, the inclusion of this information may apparently make employers more vulnerable to accusations of age discrimination. Instead, it is recommended that we ask candidates to outline their skills attributes and achievements in the area particularly relevant to the role. This could be done personally, and could be included in the company's website or information pack sent out to interested potential candidates.

From an interviewer's point of view. dates of employment can often highlight inconsistencies, without this information the interviewer will need to call on their skills to investigate in more depth, things like reasons for leaving and so on.

This is just one small example of the implications that could ensue. Taking the theme a little further, employers will have to ensure that their management team is fully briefed and receive training on all new policies and processes that have been implemented. Professional HR departments are likely to have these measures in place, but one ill-informed manager could inadvertently create a situation which could lead to litigation.

The answer seems to be in the detail. However, well meaning and apparently non-discriminatory, employers need to keep detailed records to prove compliance.

Louise Hewett

www.hewett-recruitment.co.uk