Complaint Case Notes

編號: 0026/2009/IP

標題: The job seekers asked for return of documents

立案原因: Complaints


    Using the information from a job advertisement in a newspaper, citizen X visited the recruiting Company A in person to apply for the job. He was asked to fill out a form with his name, ID number, etc., which he did. He also gave Company A his photos and the original of his recent electric bill receipt and a copy of his Macao resident ID card.
  Afterwards, in the follow-up interview, X learned that Company A would offer him a salary less than that achievable salary advertised, if he took the job. Unhappy about that offer, X refused to take the job, and demanded that Company A return all the personal data he had supplied. Eventually however, he got only his original electricity bill receipt back.
  Citizen A claimed that Company A obtained his personal data by cheating, for other illegal purposes, violated the Personal Data Protection Act, and then filed a complaint to this Office (GPDP).


    In accordance with the provisions in articles 4.1.(1) and 3.1 of the Personal Data Protection Act, the data processing involved in this case is within the scope of regulation by the said Act.
  In GPDP’s opinion, while X was asked to supply his personal data to meet the Company A’s requirement, as a data subject he could have chosen to either oblige or refuse to supply. However, his factual supply of his personal data may well be viewed as his consent to Company A processing of his personal data for the job application he was making, in exchange for the opportunity of landing the job. In other words, it was with X’s consent that Company A processed his personal data for the recruiting, and therefore Company A has the legitimacy in the processing of his data under Article 6 of the Personal Data Protection Act.
  In general, it is common practice that an employing institution collects job seekers’ personal data before interviewing and assessing them for the jobs, a process that so far has shown no procedural inappropriateness.
  On another score, the achievable salary promise to a job seeker as advertised in the company’s ad, by a common understanding, is interpreted as the level to which the salary may attain should one get the job. Therefore, even if the salary offered to X by Company A was less than that advertised, it did not constitute inconsistency with what was advertised, nor could one conclude that the company was cheating in this regard.
  Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in support of X’s allegation, GPDP cannot conclude that Company A has obtained X’s personal data by cheating or used the data for any illegal purpose.
  In summary, there was nothing to prove that Company A had violated the legal provisions in Personal Data Protection Act, the case should be closed.


    GPDP sent letters to X and Company A and informed them about the analysis and decision.

Please refer to "Personal Data Protection Act", articles 3,4,6 .