La directiva antidiscriminatoria (2000/78/EC)Implicaciones en selección de personal

  1. Aramburu-Zabala Higuera, Luis A.
Journal:
Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

ISSN: 1576-5962

Year of publication: 2004

Volume: 20

Issue: 2

Pages: 199-224

Type: Article

More publications in: Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

Abstract

The Directive (2000/78/EC) is a basic reference in the debate of the European psycholo-gists on “test bias” and the “adverse impact” of the selection procedures. To ensure com-pliance with the principle of equal treatment, Member States of the Union must implementthe Directive by 2 December 2003, and, for that reason, the concept of indirect discrimina-tion will become soon an important matter of concern, as it happened in the United States inthe past. From the theoretical standpoint, the new legal framework means a major upheaval in the conventional concepts of “fairness” and “test bias”. From a theoretical paint of view,the Directive is expected to have an impact on many common procedures in technical selec-tion processes. In this paper, we stress the psychological implications of this Directive takingas a basis the precedent decissions of the European Court of Justice. By doing this, we wantto highlight the relevance of this new legal doctrine for Wordk and Organizational Psychologists; we also want to discuss topics likely to influence our way of dealing with personnel selection in the future.

Bibliographic References

  • Anastasi, A. y Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Aramburu-Zabala (2001). Adverse impact in personnel selection: the legal framework and test bias. European Psychologist, 6(2), 103-111.
  • Arvey, R. y Faley, R. (1988). Fairness in selecting employees. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
  • Barbera, M. (1991). Discriminazione ed Eguaglianza nel rapporto di lavoro. Milano: Giuffré.
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pub. L. Nº 88- 352, 78, Stat. 243.
  • Civil Rights Act of 1991. Pub. L. Nº 102-166, 105, Stat. 1071.
  • Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. Official Journal L 039, 14/02/1976: 40-42.
  • Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. Official Journal L 180, 19/07/2000: 22-26.
  • Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000: 16-22.
  • Council Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 223 september 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. Official Journal L 269, 05/10/2002: 15-20.
  • Drenth, P. (1989). Psychological testing and discrimination. En: P. Herriot, (Ed.) Assessment and selection in organizations Chichester: Wiley. (71-80).
  • EEOC. (August 1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Federal Register 43 (166): 38290-38315.
  • Evers, A. y Van der Flier, H. (1998). Ethnic minorities on the Labour Market. En J. Drenth, H. Thierry y Ch. De Wolff (eds). Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology (vol. 2: Work Psychology) East Sussex. Psychology Press. (229-260).
  • Freedman, S. (1992). European Community Discrimination Law: a critique. Industrial Law Journal. 21(2), 35-47.
  • Hartigan, J.A. y Wigdor, A.K. (Eds.)(1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the General Aptitude Test Battery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Humphreys, L. (1973). Statistical definitions of test validity for minority groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 1-4.
  • ITC. (2000). International guidelines for test-use (version 2000). Documento recuperado de la Red: http://cwis.kub.nl/ fsw_1/itc/
  • McCormick, E. e Ilgen, D. (1992). Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Londres: Routledge.
  • Miner, M. y Miner, J. (1978). Employee selection within the law. Washington D.C. Bureau of National Affairs.
  • OFCCP, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. (2000). Employment Standards for Administrations: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Document retrieved from the Web: http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public compliance/ofccp/how2/ofcpchl.html
  • Rodríguez, M. y Fernández, L. (1986). Igualdad y discriminación. Tecnos: Madrid.
  • Sáez, C. (1994). Mujeres y mercado de trabajo: las discriminaciones directas e indirectas en trabajo. Madrid: Consejo Económico y Social.
  • Sáez, C. (1995). Las discriminaciones directas e indirectas en trabajo . Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales. 6: 67-80.
  • Te Nijenhuis, J. y Van der Flier, H. (2000). Differential prediction of immigrant versus majority group training performance using cognitive ability and personality measures? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 54-60.
  • Te Nijenhuis, J. y Van der Flier, H. (2001). Group differences in mean intelligence for the Dutch and third World immigrants. Journal of Biosocial Science, 33, 469-475.
  • Tyler, L. (1965). The Psychology of Human Differences. (3th. ed.) Nueva York: Appleton-Century-Crots. US Department of Labour (1970). Manual for the USTES General Aptitude Test Battery. US Department of Labour.
  • US Supreme Court (1971). Griggs vs. Duke Power Company, United States Reports, 401, 424(a).
  • US Supreme Court (1975). Albermale Paper Company vs. Moody, United States Reports, 422, 405.
  • US Supreme Court (1976). Washington vs. Davis, United States Reports, 96, 2040(c).
  • US Supreme Court (1978). University of California Regents vs. Bakke, United States Supreme Court Reports: Lawyer’s Edition, 57, 750-853.