Case Study: Whose Job Is It Anyway?
Bentley Contract Recruiters attends a career fair on behalf of three different employers. The names of the employers represented are disclosed to the career services office sponsoring the career fair. At the career fair, Sally Smiley, one of Bentley's representatives, talks to the students who are interested in the job opportunities offered by her three client/employers. Robert Swift, the other Bentley representative, walks around to the different employer booths giving out the firm's card and soliciting new business. During his walk around the career fair, Swift spots Queen Legal Associates, an employer/client that Swift normally represents, but is not representing at the career fair on this particular occasion. During the course of the day, Swift and Smiley speak to many students and gather resumes of those interested students. Swift advised several students who were not interested in the three clients he was representing at the fair to consider Queen Legal Associates. He subsequently noticed several of these students handing in their resumes to Queen.
A few days after the career fair, Swift sent a letter to Queen advising them that should Queen Legal Associates consider for hire any students from the career fair, Queen will be responsible to pay Bentley a fee for the hire. Queen is furious at this letter. Moreover, some of the other employers in attendance at the career fair have complained to the career services director about the solicitation by Swift.
Questions to consider:
- Was the recruiter's solicitation unethical or merely inappropriate?
- Was Queen ethically obligated to Bentley?
- Would it make any difference if Swift would have spoken to
a Queen representative during the career fair and advised the
representative that he would be referring students to Queen?
- Does career services have any obligation to the employers attending
a career fair when third-party recruiters are also in attendance?
- If an employer complained to a career center director, what would be an appropriate response?
Steps to Resolution
1. What relevant facts are known? The relevant facts in this case are that Bentley has registered with the Career Services office to represent three client firms as their campus recruiter. The recruiter Sally Smiley appears to be the lead recruiter, since she conducted all the interviews. The recruiter Robert Swift had no assigned function at the career fair. He may have been a trainee, but maybe not. His status is not relevant to the facts of the case, but could be to its resolution. The other relevant fact is that Queen, a regular client of Bentley, had not engaged Bentley as its recruiter at this career fair. And yet Bentley's representative, unasked, referred students to Queen's recruiter and then billed Queen as if it had authorized Bentley to be its contingency-fee recruiter at the career fair. Queen objected to being billed for unauthorized services. As a separate issue, other employers complained about Bentley's intrusive conduct.
2. Identify the NACE Principles in question. Several NACE Principles apply here. They are Principle Number 5.a. for Career Service Professionals and Principles Number 2, 5.a., and 7 for Third Party Recruiters.
a) Principle 5.a. for Career Services Professionals states: "Organizations providing recruiting services for a fee will be required to inform career services of the specific employer they represent and the specific jobs for which they are recruiting, and will permit verification of the information. Third-party recruiters that charge fees to students will not be permitted access to career services."
b) Principle 2 for Third-Party Recruiters states:
"Third-party recruiters will be versed in the recruitment field and work within a framework of professionally accepted recruiting, interviewing, and selection techniques."
c) Principle 5.a. states: "Third-party recruiters will disclose the following information to students and career services practitioners:
The client, or clients, that the third-party recruiter is representing and to whom the student's credentials will be disclosed. Career services will be permitted to verify this information by contacting the named client or clients. In a case of a resume referral entity, a list of clients that use the services of the entity must be made available."
d) Principle 7 states: "Third-party recruiters attending career fairs will represent employers who have authorized them and will disclose to career services the names of the represented employers."
All of these Principles pertain to this case-especially Principle 7, since it explicitly deals with career fairs. The other Principles are cited since they describe the desired environment. The career services director has an obligation to apprise students, employers and third-party recruiters of the center's rules and standards. Also, the students, employers, and third-party recruiters are ultimately responsible for knowing and following the rules and standards, even if they have not been given a tutorial on them.
3. Was the recruiter's solicitation unethical or merely inappropriate? The recruiter Robert Swift's solicitation of business from employers at the career fair violated Principle 2 and was inappropriate conduct. His referral of student's to Queen's career fair representative violated Principle 5.a. and is certainly inappropriate conduct. It crossed the line to become unethical when he attempted to charge Queen for hires resulting from his referrals. By contrast, there is nothing in the case description to suggest that Sally Smiley failed in any way to comply with the Principles. This situation suggests that Swift was acting on his own initiative.
4. Was Queen ethically obligated to Bentley? Queen is not ethically or legally obligated to Bentley since Queen had not contracted for its services. Nor is there evidence of an implied contract - on the basis that Queen was a regular client and thus could be presumed to want Bentley's help - because Smiley did not participate in Swift's behavior.
5. Would it make any difference if Swift would have spoken to a Queen representative during the career fair and advised the representative that he would be referring students to Queen? It could have been helpful if Swift would have spoken to a Queen representative during the career fair and advised the representative that he would be referring students to Queen. Such a conversation would have given Queen's representative an opportunity to put Swift on notice and thus avoid the later conflict. Nevertheless, there was no onus on Queen to justify its actions at the career fair. Bentley's relationship to Queen was that of a contract agency, not that of an agency on retainer. (Note, too, that agencies on retainer ordinarily present only fully vetted candidates and not mere names of candidates.)
6. Does career services have any obligation to the employers attending a career fair when third-party recruiters are also in attendance? Career services has an obligation to itself and the employers attending a career fair to alert them when third-party recruiters are also in attendance, if only to make sure that everyone understands the career services office's standards and procedures. The obligation is more to assure a professional climate than it is an ethical issue. Customers (here, employers) tend to return when their experience is positive.
7. If an employer complained to a career center director, what would be an appropriate response? If an employer complained to a career center director, an appropriate response would have been for the director to meet privately first with Sally Smiley, the recruiter in compliance, and share his/her concerns about Swift's conduct and how they reflect on their employer Bentley. Smiley is a potential ally of the director here, particularly if she is a conscientious career professional.
The director would point out that Swift's actions were inconsistent with Bentley's standards, that they were disruptive, and that the future of Bentley's potential business with the other employers was unnecessarily jeopardized. The director might then ask Smiley how they should proceed regarding Swift. Would Smiley recommend that the director have a "one-on-one" discussion with Swift; or would Smiley, whose firm has a stake in the outcome, prefer to correct Swift according to a checklist of items provided by the director? Either way, a corrective discussion with Swift is in order. The director should also consider barring Swift from participation in the campus's career services functions for a period of time - say, a year - to emphasize the seriousness of the transgression and to reinforce the message.
