3rd October 2006, 04:39 PM
Guidelines suggest that specifying a minimum number of year's experience should be avoided as it may disadvantage younger applicants. Note that it does not prohibit such an advertisement, but seems to be leaving it for the courts to sort out. Employers are advised to specify quality and relevance of experience rather than only length (as with so much in life[:I]).
Clearly however length of experience cannot be ignored, and is a major factor combimed with quality and relevance. In the same way as that age limits (upper or lower) can only be set if it can shown objectively to be neccesary, it would be permissible to set a minimum of (4) years experience if you could demonstrate that it is necessary.
Generally I would think that you would say "experience of this and that is required and/or desirable" without specifying a time, and trawl through the applications. Not all that different to previously really.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Clearly however length of experience cannot be ignored, and is a major factor combimed with quality and relevance. In the same way as that age limits (upper or lower) can only be set if it can shown objectively to be neccesary, it would be permissible to set a minimum of (4) years experience if you could demonstrate that it is necessary.
Generally I would think that you would say "experience of this and that is required and/or desirable" without specifying a time, and trawl through the applications. Not all that different to previously really.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.