Ex employer not providing reference

[NomoneyNohoney]

My wife started a new job, and gave her CV, showing her last five jobs or so. She was also asked to nominate two work references, one of which had to be her last job.

The last job gave a glowing reference but the other people haven't responded. The HR lady asked my wife to chase up her reference, and my wife said that the reference surely was between the two employers only? Why should she have to get involved? The HR lady then said that, even though she's been working in the new job for a month, maybe it would affect whether she is employed or not.

I think the HR woman is over-reacting - my wife has her copies of P45s to show she worked there, so if no reference is forthcoming, can it really prejudice her job? I thought that the barest minimum reference would just say, "Mrs NmNh worked here from x dates to y dates." Her p45s can demonstrate that.

[Lootman]

It's been a good number of years since I ever applied for a job, and almost as long since I hired anyone, so you might take this with a pinch of salt. But with that caveat, there were two fairly sacrosanct rules back in my day:

1) You don't have to provide a reference from your current employer because that would signal that you're on the way out. If then the new position falls though, you have prejudiced your status at your current employer

(I had an offer withdrawn once after I had accepted the offer and given notice. I got paid off by the new employer but was still hosed at the old place, and left anyway, taking the summer off).

2) Generally, taking references is a formality only done after the employer has already decided to hire you. And since nobody ever provides a reference that is likely to say bad things about you, I always thought they were a waste of time. As you say, references are usually cursory, just confirming name, title and dates.

So yes, I think this HR bod is out of order. There is presumably a line manager who wants this to go through. Talk to them rather than HR?

And since she has already started work there, I'd have thought it is much too late for them to harp on about technicalities they should have done weeks ago as part of their due diligence!

[gryffron]

NomoneyNohoney: even though she's been working in the new job for a month, maybe it would affect whether she is employed or not.

Contractually, it could. Since the job offer was almost certainly "subject to references". In practice, it makes little difference. If you find a newbie is useless, it's easy to get rid of them anyway - no unfair dismissal for new recruits. And if after a month they've discovered she's not useless, then presumably they want to keep her and not go through the trouble of recruiting again.

No-one is under any obligation to provide a reference - ever. And since there is no benefit to them in doing so, many won't. And precisely because of this, it is good practice to ask your referees permission before listing them as such - but we're a bit late for that.

What to do? Ring referees and ask them. Yes, it is your responsibility. You gave their names as referees. In future, make sure your referees know you've listed them. You are expecting them to do you a favour after all.

gryff

[NomoneyNohoney]

What to do? Ring referees and ask them. Yes, it is your responsibility. You gave their names as referees. In future, make sure your referees know you've listed them. You are expecting them to do you a favour after all.

gryff

The first my wife knew of this was at the interview, where the application form said something like 'provide two employers as referees, one of which must be your previous employer.'

I can't see the logic of this - the point of an employers' reference is as an independent assessment of the applicant's character/aethos, professional company to professional company. Asking the applicant to intervene and intimating her job is conditional on her success in getting the reference provided is crazy. What was that phrase? "No employer is obliged to provide a reference. Ever." or words to that effect...

[gryffron]

the point of an employers' reference is as an independent assessment of the applicant's character/aethos.

No. It absolutely is not. Indeed, they're risking a lawsuit if they offer such an assessment. The only useful thing a reference can do is to verify the FACTS that you have given about your past career. e.g. confirming you were employed as a brain surgeon rather than a janitor.

Asking the applicant to intervene and intimating her job is conditional on her success in getting the reference provided is crazy.

Well somewhat. But presumably your wife provided the names of the referees? Individuals, not companies? As I said, normal etiquette would be to agree this with the individuals first. That's why they are not contacted until after the job offer. Because as lootman said, you probably wouldn't want to tip off your former boss that you were job hunting.

gryff

[melonfool]

My wife started a new job, and gave her CV, showing her last five jobs or so. She was also asked to nominate two work references, one of which had to be her last job.

The last job gave a glowing reference but the other people haven't responded. The HR lady asked my wife to chase up her reference, and my wife said that the reference surely was between the two employers only? Why should she have to get involved? The HR lady then said that, even though she's been working in the new job for a month, maybe it would affect whether she is employed or not.

I think the HR woman is over-reacting - my wife has her copies of P45s to show she worked there, so if no reference is forthcoming, can it really prejudice her job? I thought that the barest minimum reference would just say, "Mrs NmNh worked here from x dates to y dates." Her p45s can demonstrate that.

If the employer made the references a condition of her ongoing employment then yes, of course it might affect her employment. The last three places I have worked have had this condition and I have withdrawn employment from people who did not secure references, even after they have started.

Even if they dismiss her, she has no claim for unfair dismissal with so little service.

As she has the 'an employer' one covered I suggest she nominates a different referee for the second one.

And yes, she should chase it up - often this is a lot more successful than new employers keep chasing.

Mel

[melonfool]

It's been a good number of years since I ever applied for a job, and almost as long since I hired anyone, so you might take this with a pinch of salt. But with that caveat, there were two fairly sacrosanct rules back in my day:

1) You don't have to provide a reference from your current employer because that would signal that you're on the way out. If then the new position falls though, you have prejudiced your status at your current employer

(I had an offer withdrawn once after I had accepted the offer and given notice. I got paid off by the new employer but was still hosed at the old place, and left anyway, taking the summer off).

2) Generally, taking references is a formality only done after the employer has already decided to hire you. And since nobody ever provides a reference that is likely to say bad things about you, I always thought they were a waste of time. As you say, references are usually cursory, just confirming name, title and dates.

So yes, I think this HR bod is out of order. There is presumably a line manager who wants this to go through. Talk to them rather than HR?

And since she has already started work there, I'd have thought it is much too late for them to harp on about technicalities they should have done weeks ago as part of their due diligence!

Well, that's a load of old bunkum.

Mel

[bitstrange]

If she was put on the spot about providing details of referees, then I'd say it's not unreasonable for her to try and find an alternative referee now. Could she ask someone else to help out, and redirect HR to that alternative referee?

[melonfool]

Mmy wife has her copies of P45s to show she worked there, so if no reference is forthcoming, can it really prejudice her job? I thought that the barest minimum reference would just say, "Mrs NmNh worked here from x dates to y dates." Her p45s can demonstrate that.

Btw, no, the P45 cannot show she worked there from x date to y date. The P45 is for one tax year only, it doesn't show the date of joining, only the date of leaving, earnings for the tax year to date and tax code.

An employer only ever needs your most recent P45, older ones are of no use at all. And only if you've not worked in that tax year since it was issued. If it's a new tax year the P45 is irrelevant.

Mel

[Lootman]

Well, that's a load of old bunkum.

No doubt your personal experience might have been different, but there is no need to be so rudely dismissive.

[Maylix]

It's been a good number of years since I ever applied for a job, and almost as long since I hired anyone, so you might take this with a pinch of salt. But with that caveat, there were two fairly sacrosanct rules back in my day:

1) You don't have to provide a reference from your current employer because that would signal that you're on the way out. If then the new position falls though, you have prejudiced your status at your current employer

(I had an offer withdrawn once after I had accepted the offer and given notice. I got paid off by the new employer but was still hosed at the old place, and left anyway, taking the summer off).

2) Generally, taking references is a formality only done after the employer has already decided to hire you. And since nobody ever provides a reference that is likely to say bad things about you, I always thought they were a waste of time. As you say, references are usually cursory, just confirming name, title and dates.

So yes, I think this HR bod is out of order. There is presumably a line manager who wants this to go through. Talk to them rather than HR?

And since she has already started work there, I'd have thought it is much too late for them to harp on about technicalities they should have done weeks ago as part of their due diligence!

Well, that's a load of old bunkum.

Mel

That's a bit harsh Mel. In my experience Lootman's point 1 above is often true, and not only for the reason given, but also in the case where one has already given notice at current employer; if one has left voluntarily and is going to a competitor, there's a chance that the reference wouldn't be a true reflection of the situation.
Lootman's 2 has more scope for disagreement; although generally true in the private sector, references seem to be given weight in the civil service and in child environments.
Regards
Maylix

[gryffron]

there's a chance that the reference wouldn't be a true reflection of the situation.

No, there isn't. In our modern times, no reference ever asks for, or provides, anything which is not a verifiable fact. They don't contain opinions or feelings. To provide anything other than "a true reflection" would risk expensive litigation.

Neither is a reference a "waste of time". It can trap candidates who have exaggerated their role/status, or who were sacked for misconduct. Verifiable facts from a previous employer.

gryff

[Maylix]

there's a chance that the reference wouldn't be a true reflection of the situation.

No, there isn't.

gryff

Really?? That's a bit too dogmatic for my liking:

'Fred has beaten his sales targets for the last 16 consecutive quarters' A 'verifiable fact' that if I leave OUT of a reference would give a totally different picture of the person than if I put it in. And by leaving it OUT, I don't have to worry about litigation. QED

Anyway, I don't wish to get involved in an argument, so this will be my last post on the subject.

Peace out.
Maylix

[Leither]

In the dreadful Glasgow bin lorry crash, the lack of a reference from the previous employer disclosing the driver's medical history was a key finding and criticism in the subsequent enquiry -

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10 ... orry-crash -

"The Sheriff identified a total of eight reasonable precautions whereby the accident might have been avoided:

...........

For First Glasgow to have provided a full, accurate and fair employment reference to Glasgow City Council in respect of Mr Clarke’s application for employment."

Leither.

[melonfool]

In the dreadful Glasgow bin lorry crash, the lack of a reference from the previous employer disclosing the driver's medical history was a key finding and criticism in the subsequent enquiry -


For First Glasgow to have provided a full, accurate and fair employment reference to Glasgow City Council in respect of Mr Clarke’s application for employment."

Leither.

Your first statement is not supported by the quote you provided, and nor is it supported by the details in the link.

I don't think the previous employer could have disclosed his medical history. There is comment about the GP disclosing medical history. The comment about the previous employer was, as you quote, about a 'full, accurate and fair' reference. For employers to share medical details with new employers I think there would have to be a change in the law to obligate this.

Plus, there is no information on whether the new employer actually asked for it - in fact, it could be inferred that they did not: "Glasgow City Council should carry out an internal review of its employment processes with a view to ascertaining potential areas for improvement in relation to checking medical and sickness absence information provided by applicants, for example by having focussed health questions within reference requests for drivers"

It's unfortunate that the first employer does seem to have had some knowledge of a potential medical condition but they clearly didn't think it was a risk or they would have dismissed him (or moved him to other duties) when it happened, which it seems they did not - so, from their point of view, there was nothing to disclose. The problem in this case lay squarely with the individual who lied to his first employer, the new employer and more than one doctor as he was afraid to lose his job. I think there are far bigger issues in this case than the reference.

Mel

[GrahamPlatt]

The problem in this case lay squarely with the individual who lied to his first employer, the new employer and more than one doctor as he was afraid to lose his job. I think there are far bigger issues in this case than the reference..

I saw I, Daniel Blake yesterday and can see why someone might be willing to take the risk. Is that what you meant by "bigger issues"?

[melonfool]

The problem in this case lay squarely with the individual who lied to his first employer, the new employer and more than one doctor as he was afraid to lose his job. I think there are far bigger issues in this case than the reference..

I saw I, Daniel Blake yesterday and can see why someone might be willing to take the risk. Is that what you meant by "bigger issues"?

Yes, social issues, rather then simple employer issues.

We have a conflict between employer requirements, the employee's rights, data protection and health and safety.

In my current role I am head of HR, responsible for data protection and H&S and we are a high security company. These conflicts take mature thought to constantly weigh up and manage.

The issues raised in the report linked to, were all the recommendations put in place, are exactly the sorts of things where people would say "it's health and safety gorn mad, just give the guy a job...." - then he kills people by blacking out at the wheel.....

Mel

[Leither]

"Your first statement is not supported by the quote you provided, and nor is it supported by the details in the link.

I don't think the previous employer could have disclosed his medical history. There is comment about the GP disclosing medical history. The comment about the previous employer was, as you quote, about a 'full, accurate and fair' reference. For employers to share medical details with new employers I think there would have to be a change in the law to obligate this."

Melonfool, no wish to prolong this but I don't really see how you think that I was incorrect in saying that the lack of a reference disclosing the driver's previous medical history was a key factor in this case.

The Sheriff found that, had First Glasgow provided a full, accurate and fair employment reference to Glasgow City Council in respect of Mr Clarke’s application for employment, then the accident might have been avoided (along with various other failings). Furthermore, he also recommended that the Council should have " focussed health questions within reference requests for drivers".

Obviously, as you say, there were many other failings, but it's clear that, in the Sheriff's opinion, the lack of any reference bringing out the medical history was one of them.

Regards,

Leither.

[DrBunsenHoneydew]

If "health matters" are critical in an appointment process, they are normally formally dealt with by a proper Occupational Health service rather than a "general reference". Personal health matters would need a proper explicit "consent to disclose" signature by the employee (it might be compulsory for a particular type of employment - just as a hospital would require a new surgeon to disclose their Hepatitis status for example to protect its patients). Your GP would not disclose your medical history to an employer without clear permission from the worker.

[JonE]

It's unfortunate that the first employer does seem to have had some knowledge of a potential medical condition but they clearly didn't think it was a risk or they would have dismissed him (or moved him to other duties) when it happened, which it seems they did not - so, from their point of view, there was nothing to disclose. The problem in this case lay squarely with the individual who lied to his first employer, the new employer and more than one doctor as he was afraid to lose his job. I think there are far bigger issues in this case than the reference.Mel

Agreed. DVLA provide a list of 'notifiable conditions' which HGV and PCV drivers are obliged to notify to them. It's down to the employee to do that.

Insurance companies also demand a statement of notifiable conditions from any driver needing to be named on the policy (due to age or qualifying for HGV/PCV in last two years, for example)). I expect self-insuring companies do the same.

The requirement for a medical to renew HGV/PCV entitlement eventually becomes an annual one (it's dependent on age) but if a driver fails to notify and a condition is not detected by (or disclosed at) routine medicals then what system could be put in place to detect a determined, reckless liar in a timely manner?

Cheers!