Reference for ex-employee

Googlewhacker

I'm personally in favour of not sending it back

BASSETT

Thanks Googlewhacker, you`re right, I was fined by the tribunal on a technicality.

Uncertain, this girl actually highlighted to me that prev employee had not been scanning items etc and offered to take her position, also ran business for two days whilst I attended tribunal. So in the beginning I was extremely grateful.
If I was to be childish and stick the knife I could fill the reference with negative points, and the rest. But she`s young and I think foolishness is a given at that age, and I wouldn`t lower myself to be honest.
It`s about me trying to do the right thing as an employer, by giving the right information to another employer as I would not employ anybody now without a glowing reference and a good reason for leaving the last place of employment.
I feel bewildered that she would offer me as a referee, given her low opinions, when she knows that this job obviously hedges on the reference I provide.

BASSETT

Zazen and Google, you`re right, I could do without the grief and I certainly do not want to be responsible for her not getting a position.
It`s hard enough for people running small businesses without any other added stress from outside factors. I`ve just got it back on track after the tribunal/theft carry on.
I`m not going to send it back, it`s been playing on my mind all day.
Again, thanks for all replies and advice, much appreciated.

Foggster

Have just seen this.

You do not have to answer their questions, you only need to confirm their employment with you. I would never answer the question "would you employ this person again" with a negative because the employee has the right to see your reference and may challenge you.

Ignore the questions they have sent you and answer what you want in a separate letter stating you will not give any further information.

I know many large multi-nationals who will only confirm employment dates and nothing else when asked to provide a reference.

LittleVoice

Foggster wrote: »

You do not have to answer their questions, you only need to confirm their employment with you. I would never answer the question "would you employ this person again" with a negative because the employee has the right to see your reference and may challenge you.
.....

I know many large multi-nationals who will only confirm employment dates and nothing else when asked to provide a reference.

You do not have to confirm their employment.

Regarding the "would you re-employ", I worked for a multi-national where the rule was that, unless perhaps if someone chose to leave because they became a mother, the company would always say "would not re-employ" - because someone resigning meant they were not happy with the company and therefore it would not be appropriate for them to return. It did not mean that the person was not a perfect employee.

DVardysShadow

LittleVoice wrote: »

You do not have to confirm their employment.

Regarding the "would you re-employ", I worked for a multi-national where the rule was that, unless perhaps if someone chose to leave because they became a mother, the company would always say "would not re-employ" - because someone resigning meant they were not happy with the company and therefore it would not be appropriate for them to return. It did not mean that the person was not a perfect employee.

And [sauce for geese and ganders], when they took references, did they ask 'Would you re-employ?' and if they did, how would they regard a 'No'?

LittleVoice

DVardysShadow wrote: »

And [sauce for geese and ganders], when they took references, did they ask 'Would you re-employ?' and if they did, how would they regard a 'No'?

I'm not sure. It was in the last millenium when I worked for them!

I wasn't involved in obtaining references when I worked for the multi-national and knew about their stance on responding. I don't recall the reference request which they sent to my previous employer having that question - but it was a long time ago!

Errata

The "Would you re-employ" question shows an interesting depth of stupidity. Businesses change, as do bosses, employees, people etc etc. Only Mystic Meg could answer that question.

crackerberry

BASSETT wrote: »

Thanks Googlewhacker, you`re right, I was fined by the tribunal on a technicality.

Uncertain, this girl actually highlighted to me that prev employee had not been scanning items etc and offered to take her position, also ran business for two days whilst I attended tribunal. So in the beginning I was extremely grateful.
If I was to be childish and stick the knife I could fill the reference with negative points, and the rest. But she`s young and I think foolishness is a given at that age, and I wouldn`t lower myself to be honest.
It`s about me trying to do the right thing as an employer, by giving the right information to another employer as I would not employ anybody now without a glowing reference and a good reason for leaving the last place of employment.
I feel bewildered that she would offer me as a referee, given her low opinions, when she knows that this job obviously hedges on the reference I provide.

She took you to a tribunal. If I were you I'd stick to the absolute bare minimum. Most large companies give no more than job title and dates worked and state this is their policy. I'd be following that example.

Otherwise you run the risk of ending up at another tribunal...this time for "post employment victimisation"...and there is no time limit on bringing an action for that.

To mention she left without notice for example is probably a (depending on the history to it and the reasons she (albeit on a "technicality") left the company) misleading statement since there is history to why she did, whether you agree with her version or not.

Premier_2

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Obviously this did not happen. OP would have discovered after taking her on. Wouldn't you think?

I wouldn't wish to be so judgemental :cool:

But if that were indeed the case, one wonders why the OP failed to make fuller enquires of the person before they employed them.

Oh well, like lambs to the slaughter ... or employers to the employment tribunal in this instance