○ Age Restriction on Cleaning Service Personnel
Mr. Min filed a complaint alleging that OO Association, the accused, limited the age of
cleaners to 50 or younger when it signed a cleaning service contract with OO Company for
which the complainant works and that the OO Company did not pay for his services on the
grounds of his exceeding the age restriction and instead imposed a suspended penalty on
him. He argued that this was an act of discrimination on the ground of age, and thereby
called for its rectification.
In response, the accused claimed that the company had been restricting the age ceiling
of cleaners from cleaning service company to 50 for the past two years to boost employee
satisfaction, as its employees prefer cleaners who are 50 or under in age. It also argued
that, at the time of bidding for the service, the complainant was aware of the age restriction
on cleaners and age restriction is prescribed in the contract and specifications, so it could
not remove the clause until the completion of cleaning service contract.
The Commission decided that there were no grounds to support the contention that
restricting the age of cleaners to 50 or younger boosts employee satisfaction, and that
although such a measure of limiting the age to 50 or younger may have enhanced
employee satisfaction, the degree of satisfaction among the recipients of the cleaning
service does not constitute a reasonable cause to justify discrimination. Also, cleaning is an
area of work which, in general, one can perform sufficiently even over 50 and thus the
accused's act of imposing limits on the age of cleaners to 50 or under is deemed
unreasonable, unless special work conditions that cannot be performed by cleaners of 50 or
more are proved.
Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the accused rectification of the practice
of limiting age of cleaners to 50 or under and cleaning service payment for three cleaners
who were denied payment for their work on the ground of violating the age restriction and
return the delay penalty, and the accused accepted the recommendations.
Chapter 4. Investigations and Remedies: Discriminatory Acts
93