BALCA on Online Advertising: Matter of SDG Post Oak

"We find that the Employer complied with the supervised recruitment instructions. It placed both print and online advertisements with the exact approved language in The Beaumont Enterprise. The actual text of the advertisement as run online was correct in regard to the experience requirement. It was only the header information added by Monster/HotJobs.com without the Employer‟s knowledge that added the erroneous information about the experience requirement. ... 

Here, the Monster/HotJobs.com header was not part of the advertisement as placed by the Employer. The text beneath the header captioning contained the correct information as agreed upon with the CO—“needs 6 months exp. as a line Cook, or 6 months related exp. in related restaurant food preparation. Any suitable combination of education, experience and training is acceptable.” (AF 58). We further note that the newspaper advertisements, the notice of filing, and the posting with the Texas State Workforce Agency all correctly described the experience requirement. (AF 35-50, 55-57, 61). 

Even if the Employer could be held responsible for failing to check the online advertisement after it had been run, in the context of this particular case, we find that the error was not sufficient to reasonably conclude that job seekers would have been discouraged from applying for the job. As the Employer noted, the header and text of the advertisement appeared on the same page. The text of the advertisement, correctly identifying the experience requirement, was in the middle of the page and easily visible. ... 

The Employer placed a compliant online advertisement pursuant to the CO‟s instructions, and the header added to the advertisement by the publisher was not part of that advertisement. Although it is possible that a job seeker may have looked at the erroneous header to the advertisement and stopped reading, the possibility that the header materially impacted the supervised recruitment results is unlikely.

Under the facts of this particular case, we find that it would be fundamentally unfair to deny certification based on a circumstance that could not reasonably be found to be under the Employer‟s ability to prevent or cure, and where the chances are remote that the error materially impacted on the recruitment effort or the CO‟s ability to adjudicate the application. Because the CO raised no other issues with the supervised recruitment in this matter, we find that certification is warranted." - Matter of SDG Post Oak, Aug. 17, 2015.  [Hats off to Helene N. Dang!]