[G] District Office accepts recommendation
and abolishes age limitation on CCTV monitor personnel
September 2- The NHRCK determined that the [G] District Office’s limiting on the qualification requirements for CCTV security control center personnel to 'physically fit females aged between 20-45’ is a discriminatory act that violates equality rights. The NHRCK issued a recommendation calling on the head of the [G] District Office not to limit the qualification requirements for CCTV security center monitor personnel by age.
In September 2008, Ms. Lee (49) filed a complaint with the NHRCK. In it, she explained, “When the [G] District Office entered into a security center service contract with the [K] company, a task instruction sheet limited the qualification requirements for monitor surveillance personnel to ‘physically fit females aged between 20-45;’ this is a discriminatory act based on age for which I request a correction.”
In regard to the complaint, the [G] District Office answered that considering the physical duties of crime prevention CCTV monitoring work, which is closely related to citizens’ daily lives, the work requires the ability to cope with things quickly. Also, given the fact that it has three shifts, the Office responded that it limited qualification requirements to be “physically fit females aged between 20-45.” However, in 2009, regarding the economic depression and the promotion of flexible employment of female workers, the qualification requirements for personnel was mitigated; it now requires applicants to be under the age of 50, and capable of using computer applications and performing work quickly.
Selection of Monitor Personnel based on verification of talents and physical strengths preferred
Regarding this incident, the NHRCK determined that although the monitoring personnel’s main duties are monitoring and making reports on the real-time-transferred monitor resources, just as the [G] district office claimed, the personnel should know how to use computer applications and how to manage urgent situations well. There is no objective basis for offering this job only to those younger than 45 or 50 years old. Physical strength and ability to manage emergencies may vary individually regardless of age. Therefore, age is not a reasonable standard. Also, during the Commission’s inspection of the [G] District Office in 2009, the office mitigated the age qualification for the CCTV monitoring personnel position to 50. However, this qualification still does not relate to the actual ability of those personnel as it was uniformly based on age. It is more reasonable to select monitoring personnel based on the abilities and physical strength that is needed for the actual work.
Furthermore, considering that the “Act on the Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Employment of Older Persons,” which prohibits age discrimination in private sector employment, is effective from this year and that the general concerns of society and demands for corrections regarding age discrimination are increasing since the unemployment rate is high, it is believed that the [G] District Office as a local government has an important responsibility to correct unreasonable age discrimination. This is the grounds for issuing a recommendation.
Regarding this recommendation, the [G] District Office immediately replied with a notice that they would eliminate the age limit when entering into service contracts for hiring monitor personnel at security control centers from 2010. The Commission welcomes the [G] District Office’s acceptance of the recommendation, and is planning to correct unreasonable age discrimination through active publicity of such laws as the ‘National Human Rights Commission Act’ and the ‘Act on the Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Employment of Older Persons.’
