Getting a reference if dismissed from previous employer.

[Bonefish Blues]

There are 2 scenarios:

1. They may give a reference, in which case it must be honest and truthful. The unspoken convention is that if they don't like you, or you left under a cloud, they will confirm the dates you were employed, the job title, and nothing else - it acts like an informal code between employers that all was not well, but without risking lying or defamining anyone.

2. They may decline to give a reference at all, there is no law compelling them to do so.

Unless he has some real serious dirt with which to blackmail his soon to be former employer, there is nothing he can do influence the matter.

I'd perhaps qualify 1.
It's now the norm as opposed to an exception that it's simply the bare details that are given, no more, so if that were the case it's unlikely that anything at all would be read into it.

I think someone also suggested addressing reason for leaving on the CV. I'd save that for a face-to-face interview, rather than act as a potential disqualifier 'up front'. That gives the opportunity to explain in person why it didn't work out and how this role we're discussing today is just the ticket.

 

[Sterlo]

I know you're not allowed to give a "bad" reference (I almost got in trouble for it once), hence some companies give basic employment info or decline, as has been stated earlier. I think personal refs are different, although you'd be unlikely to ask for a personal one from someone who was going to slag you off.

 

[steveindenmark]

The alternative is to jump before he is pushed.

 

[si_c]

I know you're not allowed to give a "bad" reference (I almost got in trouble for it once), hence some companies give basic employment info or decline, as has been stated earlier. I think personal refs are different, although you'd be unlikely to ask for a personal one from someone who was going to slag you off.

You absolutely can give a bad reference. You can say for example that someone was dismissed for cause. What you can't do is give a misleading or false reference or one that is discriminatory.

 

[Sterlo]

You absolutely can give a bad reference. You can say for example that someone was dismissed for cause. What you can't do is give a misleading or false reference or one that is discriminatory.

That's not what I was told by a recruitment company who rang me. I told them that the person was dismissed for persistent lateness and I was advise I couldn't say that so I declined.

 

[dodgy]

I'd perhaps qualify 1.
It's now the norm as opposed to an exception that it's simply the bare details that are given, no more, so if that were the case it's unlikely that anything at all would be read into it.

Exactly, there's no 'secret code' amongst employers, most these days will simply confirm dates worked and that in no way carries a 'nudge nudge' hint that all was not well. It's not an employer's job to 'certify' employees, that's what your interview process is for.
It's a long time since references were a thing, I doubt hardly any large companies do it. Most companies won't even allow employees to write a nice referral in Linkedin for a team-mate who is leaving.

 

[dodgy]

You absolutely can give a bad reference. You can say for example that someone was dismissed for cause. What you can't do is give a misleading or false reference or one that is discriminatory.

I dare say you could, but you'd better have absolutely cast iron reasons with full evidence and have the complete backing of HR, because you'll be dropped like a hot stone otherwise. If you've veered away from your HR policy even just a bit, the leaver's lawyer will have a field day.

 

[si_c]

That's not what I was told by a recruitment company who rang me. I told them that the person was dismissed for persistent lateness and I was advise I couldn't say that so I declined.

There would be no problem in that case as I'm sure that the dismissal could be clearly evidenced.

I dare say you could, but you'd better be absolutely cast iron and have the complete backing of HR, because you'll be dropped like a hot stone.

As above - if the referee can provide evidence to justify the reference then it can't be challenged. The problem is there is a persistent myth that you can't give a bad reference, and it seems that a lot of people who work in recruitment seem to beleive that to be the case, even though it's not.

It might be bad form but there is no law against it.

Of course if you said someone was a thieving git and they weren't you open yourself up to a civil case for libel or defamation.

 

[kingrollo]

There would be no problem in that case as I'm sure that the dismissal could be clearly evidenced.



As above - if the referee can provide evidence to justify the reference then it can't be challenged. The problem is there is a persistent myth that you can't give a bad reference, and it seems that a lot of people who work in recruitment seem to beleive that to be the case, even though it's not.

It might be bad form but there is no law against it.

Of course if you said someone was a thieving git and they weren't you open yourself up to a civil case for libel or defamation.

Wouldn't a big employer just therefore have a blanket policy of no references that could have any comeback - as upthread - worked here from date x to date y.

 

[dodgy]

Wouldn't a big employer just therefore have a blanket policy of no references that could have any comeback - as upthread - worked here from date x to date y.

There's a reason why some highly experienced HR directors have decided to do just that in large companies. Easy for us to go "pffft, what do they know" But as much as many of us might have varying opinions of HR, if you've been doing the job for years and have the scars, you write the policy based on that experience.

 

[marinyork]

As above - if the referee can provide evidence to justify the reference then it can't be challenged. The problem is there is a persistent myth that you can't give a bad reference, and it seems that a lot of people who work in recruitment seem to beleive that to be the case, even though it's not.

It might be bad form but there is no law against it.

Of course if you said someone was a thieving git and they weren't you open yourself up to a civil case for libel or defamation.

You could take an employer to an employment tribunal if there was discrimination in writing the reference. This is usually covered on the employee's side where a reference is agreed when there's a payout.

Negligence covers references. Defamation is ye olde schooley. Defamation covers malice rather than someone being completely incompetent. It got changed by the highest court in the land a long, long time ago. You could go defamation in that example, but the threshold for negligence is a lot lower.

 

[marinyork]

Wouldn't a big employer just therefore have a blanket policy of no references that could have any comeback - as upthread - worked here from date x to date y.

After a change in the law it was generally interpreted that a 'factual' "basic" reference for all was the way to go rather than no references or for some which were regarded as more problematic.

 

[Profpointy]

Another aspect is that if you give a glowing reference and they turn out to be useless at the next place, you could be liable for that too. Now in reality I don't expect the new employer would sue you but they could well have a case, so your company's HR and legal dept don't want to accept any risk at all with no benefit.

 

[Starchivore]

In one of my jobs I had to collect references, as part of it (no, that wasn't my whole job, how dare you).

Some of the references we got from companies were pitiful. And these weren't all for people who had left, current employees who had been doing work for them (often part-time or agency) for a couple of years.

"We confirm that X is currently employed by use in X role. X has been employed by us since X.

Please note that this reference is given in good faith. We do not accept any liability for any inaccuracies contained"

 

[Bonefish Blues]

You could take an employer to an employment tribunal if there was discrimination in writing the reference. This is usually covered on the employee's side where a reference is agreed when there's a payout.

Negligence covers references. Defamation is ye olde schooley. Defamation covers malice rather than someone being completely incompetent. It got changed by the highest court in the land a long, long time ago. You could go defamation in that example, but the threshold for negligence is a lot lower.

How might you do that as a complainant? There's no dismissal by oldco, since what happens is that an employee resigns, newco applies for reference, a 'discriminatory' (do you mean this v-a-v a protected characteristic, or are you using this in a layperson's sense?) reference is given, and the newco dismisses in good faith, based on that?

Reproduced from an Employment Lawyers' site, it covers the two main forms of redress:

Can you sue someone for giving you a bad reference?
If an employer gives an inaccurate or negligent job reference, the employee can sue their former employer to recover damages. This claim is brought in the County Court NOT the Employment Tribunal. The former employee must have suffered financial loss ie. that the ex-employee failed to get a new job because of the bad reference and lose the income that new job would have provided. Legal Aid may be available to assist you to pursue such a claim.
Defamation claims, when it comes to bad employee references, are quite common. However, they are also difficult to prove and largely depend on the circumstances surrounding the claim. It must be proven that the employer provided a poor or false reference with malicious intent. If the reference was provided without malice and the employer believed the contents of the reference to be true (even if they are untrue), then they can’t be successfully sued for defamation.