Ad description
An e-mail from a recruitment firm stated "... At the moment we are currently recruiting for a client in Aberdeen who are [sic] seeking 10 Senior Project Engineers for a long term Brownfield Topside modification project. This particular role is paying £65/hr to £67/hr for engineers with experience on similar projects and up to £58/hr for Project Engineers from other industries, who would be keen on making the transition into the Oil & Gas sector ...".
Issue
The complainant, who did not believe that the job vacancy was genuine, challenged whether the e-mail was misleading.
Response
NES UK Ltd, t/a NES Global Talent, (NES) stated that, after being approached by a client to source 12 Senior Project Engineers for a project in Aberdeen, they had sent an e-mail to a selection of individuals on their internal databases to advertise the positions. They provided documentation showing the full job specification and the vacancy listing on their database. The documentation gave the pay rate as £58 per hour, which NES said was the minimum pay to be awarded to those without direct experience in similar projects. They explained that they had chosen not to market the vacancy on their website on this occasion.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted that NES had provided documentation relating to the job vacancy, including a copy of the listing on their database at the time that the e-mail was sent to the complainant. We noted that that listing referred to the position as being for Senior Project Engineers to work in the oil and gas industry and specified a pay rate at the lower end of that given in the e-mail.
The complainant had been concerned that the vacancy might not be genuine on the basis that it had not appeared on NES' website. However, the e-mail invited recipients to contact NES for further information about the vacancy and did not refer to viewing the listing online. We understood that NES had chosen not to advertise the vacancy in question on their website.
Because we were satisfied that the documentation supplied demonstrated the existence, at the time the e-mail was sent, of at least 10 vacancies for Senior Project Engineers to work for one client in a capacity appearing to match that outlined in the e-mail, we concluded that the e-mail was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
20.2
20.2
Employment marketing communications must relate to genuine vacancies and potential employees must not be asked to pay for information.
Living and working conditions must not be misrepresented. Quoted earnings must be precise; if one has to be made, a forecast must not be unrepresentative. If income is earned from a basic salary and commission, commission only or in some other way, that must be made clear.
(Employment) but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
