Reference after written warning

Comms69

Just on the points raised above; most references are opinions based upon fact.


So saying things like - didn't fit well with the team; slow to respond etc are fine

Masomnia

References also have to be fair and accurate.

I wouldn't mention it, unless I knew it would be disclosed then I would. It's a judgment call really, but you're most likely going to count yourself out of a potential new position when chances are it won't be mentioned on a reference anyway. If it is mentioned then you just be honest about what happened. Personally I wouldn't expect a candidate for a role to tell me that they had a WW on file, and I wouldn't consider it a massive breach of trust if they didn't disclose it; maybe that's just me.

Comms69

Masomnia wrote: »

References also have to be fair and accurate.

I wouldn't mention it, unless I knew it would be disclosed then I would. It's a judgment call really, but you're most likely going to count yourself out of a potential new position when chances are it won't be mentioned on a reference anyway. If it is mentioned then you just be honest about what happened. Personally I wouldn't expect a candidate for a role to tell me that they had a WW on file, and I wouldn't consider it a massive breach of trust if they didn't disclose it; maybe that's just me.

References do not have to be fair at all.


They can exclude all positive aspects and include only negative aspects if the former employer chooses

Masomnia

Comms69 wrote: »

References do not have to be fair at all.


They can exclude all positive aspects and include only negative aspects if the former employer chooses

Yes they do. Employers have a duty of care to their ex-employees (as well as to prospective employers) that references are not misleading.

TBagpuss

Kickup wrote: »

From what I understand a company can not give a bad reference but can choose to not to provide you with a reference if they are not happy with you. If I was you I would not mention your warning as the chances of the new employer finding out are next to none. I really would not let this worry you and wishing you good luck for your interviews

This is not correct.

The requirement is that the reference is accurate and fair

So if you had an employye who was terrible at their job, you couldn't give them a glowing reference saying they were awesome, and equally, if you have a good employee, you can't give them a reference saying they were terrible.

(well, you could, in either case, but they have a duty of care both to the employee and employer, and could potentially be liable if either suffered losses as a result of a misleading reference)

As a result, a lot of employers only give factual references, e.g. confirming the dates you were employed and the job title you held.

Comms69

Masomnia wrote: »

Yes they do. Employers have a duty of care to their ex-employees (as well as to prospective employers) that references are not misleading.

No no, that is not correct.


They must be accurate and truthful, but references can and often do miss out details. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise.


Define fair; because perhaps it is the use of that word, that is causing confusion.

robatwork

And it's all this FUD that leads to most references actually being as my post #6

[Deleted User]

References can be bad, and can be untrue. It happened to me and when I received legal advice I was told there was little I could do, it costs a lot of money to take a company to court for this sort of thing. Legally they can't lie in a reference, practically they can.

Comms69

deannatrois wrote: »

References can be bad, and can be untrue. It happened to me and when I received legal advice I was told there was little I could do, it costs a lot of money to take a company to court for this sort of thing.

Malicious falsehood isn't expensive.


It's not the same as libel. (though in effect the two are very similar)

jonnygee2

Define fair; because perhaps it is the use of that word, that is causing confusion.

The need for an employer to be 'fair' is well established in most aspects of employment law. How it is defined in specific cases is really down to employment tribunals, but something like the man on the clapham omnibus applies.