Vindictive Reference Leads to Job Offer removed

Minoush01

The job offer did not include a proviso of references and although it is factually correct I was reported, this was because of one persons opinion. It is also factually correct that I was cleared of any wrong doing and have passed all relevant checks to work with children. I am under the impression, after much research and advice that a job offer can't be withdrawn unless it was stated to be conditional.

WestonDave

Minoush01 wrote: »

The job offer did not include a proviso of references and although it is factually correct I was reported, this was because of one persons opinion. It is also factually correct that I was cleared of any wrong doing and have passed all relevant checks to work with children. I am under the impression, after much research and advice that a job offer can't be withdrawn unless it was stated to be conditional.

Your impression is utterly wrong - even if you'd started and they decided they didn't like your face they could terminate the employment within 2 years. If the referee was asked specifically if they were aware of any incidents that might give rise to concern about child safety, they'd have to disclose the incident to answer truthfully.

Minoush01

As soon as you have been offered a job, and have accepted it, this forms a basic legal contract between you and your new employer, even if you haven't yet received anything in writing. Often job offers are expressed to be subject to receipt of "satisfactory" references. However, if the prospective employer doesn't mention this at the time, it can't add this condition later on.


If an offer that has been accepted is then withdrawn, your employer has 'breached' the contract.

I took this from a website called WorkSMART (from the TUC) but I also found the same information on various websites and was told it by two people who work in HR for unrelated companies.

WestonDave

That is technically correct - they will have breached the contract however in law there is no practical penalty for doing so. If you fancy enforcing the contract feel free to find a solicitor who is unscrupulous enough to take your money for a lost cause.

ohreally

Jackson v Liverpool City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1068

Minoush01

Thanks, there do seem to be some interesting points in that case that are of help to me. I think my main problem is that someone can be allowed to intimate that I deliberately caused harm to my child which was found to be not the case. No parent wants that thought about them. Whats the point of Child Services looking into it and clearing me if it is then used against me. Think I need to find out exactly what was said about me.

theoretica

I agree you need to find out what was said, but from your description it doesn't sound to me like it is the referee who is at fault. She seems to have made a facutal and truthful statement about her past actions. I think your target needs to be the undue reaction of your potential employer. There are all systems in place to help employers make reasonable decisions rather than kneejerk negatives. Sadly, as has been said, your employment rights are very limited before you have been with them for two years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-employers-make-safer-recruiting-decisions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-sample-policy-on-the-recruitment-of-ex-offenders

getmore4less

How did the person that reported you know about the incident.


If you knew they had done the reporting that should have been warning enough.

pmduk

Minoush01 wrote: »

I think my main problem is that someone can be allowed to intimate that I deliberately caused harm to my child which was found to be not the case. No parent wants that thought about them. ... Think I need to find out exactly what was said about me.

You don't know that anyone has intimated this, I suspect it hasn't been said, as it would almost certainly be actionable, as it has been proved you haven't caused harm. It's more likely that the mere suggestion of a referral to child services has caused the employer to think again.

Personally, in future, I'd mention this at interview giving the full facts and offering anything you have from the investigation exonerating you. Other may have differing views.

Undervalued

Minoush01 wrote: »

As soon as you have been offered a job, and have accepted it, this forms a basic legal contract between you and your new employer, even if you haven't yet received anything in writing. Often job offers are expressed to be subject to receipt of "satisfactory" references. However, if the prospective employer doesn't mention this at the time, it can't add this condition later on.


If an offer that has been accepted is then withdrawn, your employer has 'breached' the contract.

I took this from a website called WorkSMART (from the TUC) but I also found the same information on various websites and was told it by two people who work in HR for unrelated companies.

That is true but you have almost no remedy.

If your contract has a provision entitling you to notice (be it a week - a month - three months or whatever) then they must pay you this (or alternatively let you work it). However that is it. If there is no mention of notice in your contract then the statutory minimum will apply which is zero in the first month.

They can terminate your employment for any non discriminatory reason during the first two years and they do not even have to give a reason if they don't want to.

You can obtain a copy of the reference from the recipient by making a subject access request under the DPA. If it is provably untrue or deliberately misleading then you MAY have a claim against the writer. This would either be for libel (high court and very expensive / risky) or negligent misstatement (county court so cheaper / lower risk).

Take proper legal advice before going down this route.