Finding a job is especially tough at the moment, but online recruitment sites and agencies can sometimes add to jobhunters' woes, writes PETER CLUSKEY

THE RAPID pace of Ireland’s economic downturn has left thousands of unemployed workers scrambling for a dwindling number of jobs, while depending on recruitment agencies to act as professional intermediaries.

But the recruitment sector itself is under pressure, with major clients laying off staff rather than hiring, more CVs pouring in than at any time in years, and fewer jobs to match them with.

At the same time, the business itself has changed. Rather than walking into a recruitment office and speaking to a real, live consultant, increasing numbers of jobhunters are using internet recruitment portals, which act as noticeboards where agencies can post jobs and candidates can apply for them online.

But how satisfactory is this online experience? When there are no personal interactions between recruiter and candidate, how professionally handled is the selection process? And how well do candidates understand the system – for instance, the difference between a portal and the agencies that use it?

Well, here’s the view of one woman: “I’m completely disenchanted. If they want to find the best people, I would advise employers to advertise their jobs themselves and cut out the middlemen, the agencies. I would go so far as to say that some recruitment agencies are actually impeding the road back to employment for a lot of people.”

Helen (34) is an IT professional who lives near Naas, Co Kildare. She does not want to be named because she feels it might hinder her efforts to find a job.

She has been a stay-at-home mother for the past two years, looking after her two daughters, aged five and two. But her husband was laid off recently, so they are both now looking anxiously for work.

“I would say we’re a pretty typical example of what’s been happening to people over the past 12 months,” she says. “I’ve been chatting to other people in much the same boat on discussion sites and – rightly or wrongly – there’s a perception that agencies are concerned only about their corporate clients; candidates are interview fodder, and there’s no accountability.

“It seems to me that at least some of the jobs advertised on online sites don’t exist at all – because they can be on the same site for months, and when you apply you’re told they’ve been filled.”

According to Helen, in other cases, you apply for a job and get “no response from the agency at all, which seems to suggest that some agencies are simply harvesting CVs to see what they get, and then selling on the best”.

She adds: “Jobseekers in this economic climate don’t have time to apply for imaginary jobs or to dress up and get their hopes raised over mismatched interviews – when they can get them.”

Being on the outside, of course, Helen has no way of knowing whether her perceptions are correct. So we decided to look at two of her examples of how she feels ill-used.

First, however, we put her general perceptions to Elaine Roddy, director of the National Recruitment Federation (NRF), set up to represent the industry in 1971 – the year the licensing of agencies was introduced under the Employment Agency Act.

The NRF does not represent the online recruitment sector, but many of its member agencies use online portals.

“Firstly, it’s in our code of conduct that agencies must only advertise real jobs,” says Roddy.

“We don’t have any control over the jobs sites, but we are aware that there are jobs that do seem to stay up there for a long time.

“There can be a number of reasons for that: sometimes the client may not have found the right person for the job, which can be frustrating for the candidates who’ve applied. And sometimes, although the job is gone, the software can take a while to remove it.”

Roddy rejects the suggestion that agencies are “harvesting” CVs. “At the moment there are so many CVs coming in, why would anyone do that? There’s a flood. One of the reasons companies are turning to recruitment agencies now is to screen that huge volume of applications.”

The two experiences Helen relates were through a recruitment portal she uses, Irishjobs.ie.

In the first case, she applied for a job as an IT administrator and received an e-mailed reply saying her application had been sent directly to Richmond Recruitment. She did not receive a reply from Richmond Recruitment, but was subsequently contacted by CPL, to whom she had not applied.

She could not understand how her confidential details had been passed between the two agencies, something she felt might be contrary to the Data Protection Act.

Both CPL and Richmond Recruitment are members of the NRF, so we put this case to Roddy, who put us in touch with Paul Carroll, a director of CPL.

“Richmond and CPL are basically the same company,” says Carroll. “CPL Resources Plc owns Richmond Recruitment, one of 10 agencies in Ireland and central and eastern Europe, so there are no issues of data protection or privacy involved. When someone with an IT background applies to us, that CV will be forwarded to an IT specialist, under whichever brand name that specialist is operating, and that is why the contact came from CPL in this case.”

However, he adds: “I would unreservedly apologise for the weakness of the explanation of the relationship between the companies in this case, but the logic was well-intentioned. One of the worst criticisms a candidate can make about an agency is that they don’t respond at all, which we did.

“And one of the criticisms of jobs sites is that they can’t stream applications to the most appropriate consultants, as real agencies do – and as we did in this case.”

In the second case, Helen applied for a job as an IT helpdesk team leader, and received an e-mailed reply from Irishjobs.ie, saying her application had been sent directly to an online recruitment firm. Helen’s initial application was made on March 5th. On April 16th, she discovered that the job was still being advertised but she had received no further communication about it.

The firm, which subsequently contacted the individual concerned, says it makes every effort to contact all applicants in a timely fashion but, like many of its peers, it is struggling under the weight of applications – many of which are from people who are grossly under- or overqualified.

Irishjobs.ie deals with about 1,000 clients, some 300 of which are recruitment agencies, and the site’s marketing manager Valerie Sorohan emphasises that it is not the website itself nor its operators who post and remove jobs.

“All clients are made aware of this. They post the jobs and, as soon as they’ve stopped receiving applications or they don’t want any more applications, they themselves take that job down . . . They have the control. We’re simply the advertising platform.”

A small percentage of agencies might not be sticking to the highest ethical standards, she adds. Irishjobs.ie monitors those agencies, though it is difficult, with about 20,000 jobs online.

“If recruitment agencies are posting false jobs or posting duplicates, they are wasting jobseekers’ time, and jobseekers are finding it difficult enough in this environment,” Sorohan says.

“In the long term, it will damage the reputations of the agencies involved. So I would strongly advise recruitment agencies to adhere to best practice and to ensure that what they’re posting is valid and of the highest quality.”

Code of conduct

THE NATIONAL Recruitment Federation’s (NRF) nine-point code of conduct outlines the behaviour expected of its member recruitment agencies and the process by which it handles complaints.

The code stipulates that “only real jobs that the member is authorised to promote may be advertised”.

Complaints are dealt with by the federation’s ethics committee, whose three or sometimes four members are joined by an independent arbitrator in appeal situations.

A complaint must be made in writing, and the respondent has 14 days within which to submit a written defence to the ethics committee.

The complainant and/or the respondent can then appeal against the decision of the ethics committee within 10 days of its ruling.

The code stipulates that all candidates must be interviewed by an agency before being put forward to a client. The interview can be face-to-face or by phone. However, if it is the latter, the client must be informed.

Candidates must be given the full details of any job for which an agency intends to recommend them, and references must not be sought without a candidate’s consent.

Recruitment agencies must be licensed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the Employment Agency Act 1971.

In dealing with candidates, the NRF code of conduct says “full regard must be given to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998”.

“We take every grievance or complaint very seriously,” says NRF director Elaine Roddy.

The federation's offices are based at St John's Court, Swords Road, Santry, Dublin, and its code of contact and complaints procedure are available online at www.nrf.ie.

Regulating agencies

SO HOW are recruitment agencies regulated in other countries?

Singapore is an interesting case, in that agencies which repeatedly infringe the Employment Agencies Act are placed on a surveillance list and can lose their licences.

Although licences in Ireland can be revoked by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, they have no specified duration, whereas in Singapore they must be renewed each year.

"Demerit points" are issued when an agency infringes the act. These are valid for six months, and an agency that accumulates 12 or more of these points is placed on the ministry's surveillance list.

Any agency placed on that list is automatically warned that further infringements will lead to the revocation of its licence.

On the ministry's website, the public can find three lists: one which lists licensed agencies; a second which lists agencies under surveillance; and a third which lists agencies whose licences have been revoked.

Agencies operating without a valid licence risk a fine of up to $5,000 (€3,700) for a first offence – or up to $10,000, a six-month prison sentence or both for repeat offenders.