A recruitment advertisement for Success Corcaigh appeared on various recruitment websites stating:
“Sales/Marketing/Customer Service Consultant
Company: Success Corcaigh
Job: Full-Time, Permanent
Salary: 15,000 – 20,000 Eur per year based on results & growth.
At Success Corcaigh we aim to be our client’s top source of new customers between now and the end of the summer! Therefore, we’re looking to develop Sales/ Marketing/ Customer Service Consultants over the next two weeks.
Are you over 18 and eligible to work in Ireland? ... Are you looking for a fun work environment? ... If yes, we’d love to hear from you!
No experience is required because we offer regular product-training workshops and ongoing support, but previous sales or customer service experience is always helpful. We value work ethic, student mentality and a positive attitude above all other attributes
Our Sales/ Marketing/ Customer Service Consultants help our clients acquire new customers on a daily basis by speaking with the public face-to-face to present their brand in a fun and informative way.
Sales/ Marketing/ Customer Service Consultant Requirements:
* You must be able to work 3 or more full days Mon-Sat (No ‘evening only’ or ‘weekend only’ work available)
* You must be over 18 years of age to sign contracts on behalf of our clients
* You must have access to reliable transportation to and from the city centre
* Business knowledge can be helpful if looking to advance (growth and earnings = result based)
* Leadership abilities are also helpful for those looking to make the most of this opportunity.”
On some of the websites the salary was referred to as €300 per week rather than the per year quotation as above.
The complainant viewed the advertisements and noted the salary figures quoted. She understood that the positions were not as advertised as the salary was on a commission only basis. The complainant also considered that the description of the roles were not accurate and did not disclose the full reality of the positions. The position was described as a customer service consultant in sales and marketing but consisted of door to door sales. The complainant considered the advertising to be misleading.
The advertisers failed to provide a response to the complaint.
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint. The Complaints Committee expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code. In the absence of a response from Success Corcaigh, the complaint was upheld.
The advertisement must not reappear in its current form.