Reference, can an employer say a person is rude?

DCodd

SomeBozo wrote: »

I think there is a lot of misguided advice happening on this thread.

Some employers do indeed only provide dates of employment, sick record etc.

This isn't becuase they are "wise", its usually because they have been given some duff legal advice in the past along the lines of "just say dates or you could get sued". Which is of course a load of tosh.

I'll say again, you can put anything you like in a reference as long as its true and can be backed up by a paper trail.

A persons reference should reflect what is in their personal record, and given thats where diciplinaries/praise should end up, thats a good yardstick rule.

So, in the OPs instance, if the person had had complaints made against them to their manager along the lines of "She is rude" at for example "one to ones" then the manager has this backup should he be challenged.

I would probably have worded it like "Some of her colleagues have complained to me in the past that she can be rude". Thats much safer and a statement of fact, rather than opinion.

Bozo

The extent of the following case is the reason for caution in giving references, even though the reference was correct the subsequent reliance on that reference and a reference to that reference for a job years later was held to be negligent! References, if a personal opinion is given can be a proverbial can of worms!

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f010703.htm

SomeBozo

References, if a personal opinion is given can be a proverbial can of worms!

I am aware of the case outlined above.

But again, the case revolves around opinions. Not fact.

Bozo

DCodd

SomeBozo wrote: »

I am aware of the case outlined above.

But again, the case revolves around opinions. Not fact.

Bozo

It actualy revolves around fact, He was being investigated for misconduct, misconduct was proven on at least one point but he was asked to resign prior to the conclusion of that investigation and it was ajudged that a subsequent reference from a following employer relied on grounds that were not fully investigated!

Even the statement "Some of her colleagues have complained to me in the past that she can be rude". is ambigous at best. It leaves the employer open to legal action and a scrutiny of their procedures by a tribunal.

"Wise" employers really do not leave themselves open to potential action. Most reference requests I receive today, are in the question and answer formats mainly designed to avoid such events. I would never volunteer information regarding "personality clashes", one persons "rude" is anither persons "profesional and impartial". IMHO - OOPS opinion again:D:D

SomeBozo

It actualy revolves around fact,

I don't want to hijack the OPs thread, but the case quoted is much more complex than that, involves 2 employers, mixing verbal and written references, suspension down to company policy not obtaining reference.

Even the statement "Some of her colleagues have complained to me in the past that she can be rude". is ambigous at best. It leaves the employer open to legal action and a scrutiny of their procedures by a tribunal.

I agree that this is not best practice. But if as a manager staff were complaining about a member being rude, that member was talked to and a action plan agreed and completed, I see no reason to mention it on a reference. However if the problem occurs and becomes a issue and is then made more formal in the persons record, to mention this in a reference, when asked is not a legal minefield at all.

Wise" employers really do not leave themselves open to potential action. Most reference requests I receive today, are in the question and answer formats mainly designed to avoid such events. I would never volunteer information regarding "personality clashes", one persons "rude" is anither persons "profesional and impartial". IMHO - OOPS opinion again

I don't think being honest and truthful on a reference sticking to fact is unwise. Its the same with libel and slander laws in that the truth can't be challenged successfully.

Thos companies that provide the minimal data only (and there is no legal requirement to provide a reference, mearly good practice) are (IMO!) diluting the purpose of references.

Looking at my work with my clients, I use :

All data given in a reference should be based on fact or capable of independent verification. As a guide, references should be fair, accurate and not give a misleading overall impression of the employee.
Referees should avoid giving any subjective opinion about an individual’s performance, conduct or suitability, unless it can be substantiated with factual evidence.

which I believe is stabndard blurb in a good reference policy.

Bozo

Any

As an employer I would rather if the references were being honest. How much trouble would it save me!!
AT my old job we had a cow because of whom 5 people left - one of them actualy requested a meeting to talk about her attitude.
I see that as "some colleagues perceive her as rude". It's backed by statement from the colleague and factual. Not stating opinion.
Depends on the OP's friends circumstances... The OP didn't reply at all, maybe there was loads of complains and grievance procedures etc etc... It's difficult to judge without details, isn't it?

Jomo

At the end of the day, an employer would be safe in all cases if only the simple facts were given, such as sick leave, salary etc. etc.

Regardless of whether evidence is in existence, by abiding by these simple rules, there will be less risk all round.

Any

Yes, you are right, there would - appart from the new employer... What is the point of references? Yes, that's right, there isn't one..

DCodd

SomeBozo wrote: »

I don't want to hijack the OPs thread, but the case quoted is much more complex than that, involves 2 employers, mixing verbal and written references, suspension down to company policy not obtaining reference.



I agree that this is not best practice. But if as a manager staff were complaining about a member being rude, that member was talked to and a action plan agreed and completed, I see no reason to mention it on a reference. However if the problem occurs and becomes a issue and is then made more formal in the persons record, to mention this in a reference, when asked is not a legal minefield at all.



I don't think being honest and truthful on a reference sticking to fact is unwise. Its the same with libel and slander laws in that the truth can't be challenged successfully.

Thos companies that provide the minimal data only (and there is no legal requirement to provide a reference, mearly good practice) are (IMO!) diluting the purpose of references.

Looking at my work with my clients, I use :

All data given in a reference should be based on fact or capable of independent verification. As a guide, references should be fair, accurate and not give a misleading overall impression of the employee.
Referees should avoid giving any subjective opinion about an individual’s performance, conduct or suitability, unless it can be substantiated with factual evidence.

which I believe is stabndard blurb in a good reference policy.

Bozo

I agree with not hijacking the op's thread and I agree with what you say. I just do not agree with some of your interpretations. regardless of what paperwork or audit trail you have, if the initial complaint of rudeness could be regarded as a personal opinion then (if the op is prepared for the huge stress and upheaval) they would probably have a case to go to tribunal. IMHO!

EDIT -That does not mean that they would win though!!!!

DCodd

Completely off topic SomeBozo - how do you insert the quotes split up in that way????:D

Any

DCodd wrote: »

Completely off topic SomeBozo - how do you insert the quotes split up in that way????:D

When you do "reply" there is always QUOTE= in brackets etc. You have to copy and paste it to open/close the part you want with the brackets where you want the quote to start/finish, if you know what I mean?