IT’S a trendy boutique famed for beautiful staff - but one out-of-pocket teen thinks Hollister Co’s recruitment procedure is ugly.
Corey Burnham, aged 16, of Nether Green, Sheffield, was thrilled and flattered to be asked to work at the American-owned clothes shop in Meadowhall where all the staff look like models. And after attending an interview she was delighted to be offered a job - although she had to buy a £79 uniform of Hollister clothes before starting.
But fashion’s young dream turned sour when she wasn’t given any work. A month went by, despite Corey being available at any time, before she finally managed to obtain two shifts, filling in for people who were off. That was all she ever got. Her mum Alison is angry at how her daughter was treated: “Corey was very pleased to be asked for the job as it is well known Hollister only take on staff who look like models. In fact she was approached twice, once in store and once in Sheffield city centre. But she was told there was ‘a lot of competition for shifts’ and in the interview she was told the store had 400 staff.
“I am disgusted - how many others have signed up with the promise of a job and paid £80 for clothes and never received work? Hollister is aware teenagers are impressed to be offered a ‘prestigious’ job.”
Alison said she sent two letters of complaint, including one to the head of office in America, but did not receive a reply.
Last year Hollister was slammed when a worker was prevented from wearing a red Remembrance Day poppy because it was not part of the corporate uniform.
A HOLLISTER spokeswoman said they did not have a comment. She added: “The head of our customer service department would be more than happy to help Alison, and we will contact her directly to find a solution.
“In terms of the issue you have described, we are getting to the bottom of what happened with our store operations teams. This is an internal process and we do not have a comment.”
Douglas Johnson of Sheffield Law Centre said it was not unlawful to discriminate on grounds of attractiveness.
Requiring workers to pay for uniform was also permitted if it was in the employment contract.