It is something that in the XXI century has happened to everyone : sending the curriculum to a job offer through the Internet and not receiving any response from the company. Well, this has been expensive for a Spanish company (which company it belongs to has not been made public) that will have to pay a 2,000 euro fine for not responding to one of the applicants who denounced the company.
What happened?
A user sent his resume via WhatsApp to a company requesting a job they were offering. The company never responded to the plaintiff, and the mistake was that, according to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, they are obliged to report what treatment is made of these data.
When receiving no response, the candidate denounced the company and the AEPD opened an investigation. Months later, when the AEPD also contacted the company and did not receive a response either, the agency understood that the company failed to comply with the regulations by not responding with an informative message clarifying the treatment that would be carried out on those personal data collected in the curriculum. of the affected.
As stated in the resolution: «The collection of personal data through forms included in a web page constitutes data processing, with respect to which the data controller must comply with the provisions of article 13 of the Regulation General Data Protection ».
2,000 euros fine
The fine has been 2,000 euros, as stated in the resolution itself, which could now set a precedent with many companies that do not answer job seekers.
The company was denounced on March 10, 2020, and now it will be forced to pay this fine for not responding to the candidate. In addition, according to the AEPD, the affected company also incurred a fault for not clearly identifying on its website the person responsible for the protection of data of the company, the rights that assist users or the ways to access those rights .
The AEPD has made it clear that it contacted the indicated company, with the intention that they could exercise their right to argue, but the company did not answer the body either.
For the action of the AEPD, there was a previous complaint from the user who sent the curriculum to the company and who presented evidence of everything that happened to serve in the investigation.
