Fired over Facebook? Options

[Andy Capp]

It's a friggin' reference not a legally binding contract. An employer is not obliged to provide a reference at all, and if they do it's only an opinion. An employee may have been rubbish or fantastic at their job it doesn't mean they will carry that through to future employment. All this tosh about legal issues is simply inane comments by employees who simply don't understand how business works. Rant over!

And this is one of the potentially good things of a debating forum, people can learn something from the discussion and therefore hopefully improve on their knowledge. Why you should get all uppity about it seems silly. We all can't know everything immediately.

[Vodabury]

Honesty?

If you give a non-committal reference I guess no one could blame you. However, if you give a glowing reference to someone you know to be useless (purely in the hope that the new employer would take away a problem for you) then I would have thought that it could be a form of fraud - or miss-selling!

How would the new employer be removing your problem? If you are giving a reference your problem is already gone (as it is a bit of a clue that the current employment contract is terminated).

[blackdog]

How would the new employer be removing your problem? If you are giving a reference your problem is already gone (as it is a bit of a clue that the current employment contract is terminated).

Can an employee not ask for a reference before he resigns? As a line manager I certainly wrote references for staff who were job hunting, not all of whom got the job they were after.

[Simon Kirby]

It's a friggin' reference not a legally binding contract. An employer is not obliged to provide a reference at all, and if they do it's only an opinion. An employee may have been rubbish or fantastic at their job it doesn't mean they will carry that through to future employment. All this tosh about legal issues is simply inane comments by employees who simply don't understand how business works.

Rant over!

As Vodabury said, outside of any contract between the parties it's not obvious what cause of action the new employer might have against the old employer for not giving a reference that mentioned the faults of the applicant, but it's possible the old employer owes the new employer some statutory or common law duty of care that Chesapeake knows about and if there is it would be good to know what it is.

[Strafin]

Like everything, treat others how you would expect to be treated. If you give a reference for an employee to another company they in turn might give you a reference back for another employee if you need one.

[Chesapeake]

As Vodabury said, outside of any contract between the parties it's not obvious what cause of action the new employer might have against the old employer for not giving a reference that mentioned the faults of the applicant, but it's possible the old employer owes the new employer some statutory or common law duty of care that Chesapeake knows about and if there is it would be good to know what it is.

Hope this link helps explain things in a little more detail?

http://www.michaelpage.co.uk/content/15611...references.html

[Vodabury]

Hope this link helps explain things in a little more detail?

http://www.michaelpage.co.uk/content/15611...references.html

Quoted from the linked webpage:

"Employers do not have to give a full and comprehensive reference. Given the potential liabilities involved, it is common for employers to give only a short statement confirming that the individual was employed, the dates of the employment and the employee's job title." [My emphasis].

I will say again, why would you want to go much further? With a company reference, I would keep it entirely factual and neutral.

[Andy Capp]

I will say again, why would you want to go much further? With a company reference I would keep it entirely factual and neutral.

Perhaps some people (even employers) are human and want to.

[Chesapeake]

Quoted from the linked webpage:

"Employers do not have to give a full and comprehensive reference. Given the potential liabilities involved, it is common for employers to give only a short statement confirming that the individual was employed, the dates of the employment and the employee's job title." [My emphasis].

I will say again, why would you want to go much further? With a company reference, I would keep it entirely factual and neutral.

Did you not read this section below? Although it is sometimes best practice to keep references short and neutral (and sometimes Company Policy) there is the added obligation to the possible new company if there has been "major" problems with the outgoing employees service. This of course would have had to have been fully dealt with through the company's disciplinary procedure. It could not just be conjecture.


<h2 style="clear: both;">"What are the respective rights and obligations?</h2>Negligence

Obligation:

An employer owes a duty of care to both the employee and the recipient for the content of a reference. The employer must provide a true, accurate and fair reference.

Rights:

If an employer fails to take care in providing a reference, the employee or the recipient may be able to bring a claim in negligence for any damage suffered as a result."

[Vodabury]

Did you not read this section below? Although it is sometimes best practice to keep references short and neutral (and sometimes Company Policy) there is the added obligation to the possible new company if there has been "major" problems with the outgoing employees service. This of course would have had to have been fully dealt with through the company's disciplinary procedure. It could not just be conjecture.


<h2 style="clear: both;">"What are the respective rights and obligations?</h2>Negligence

Obligation:

An employer owes a duty of care to both the employee and the recipient for the content of a reference. The employer must provide a true, accurate and fair reference.

Rights:

If an employer fails to take care in providing a reference, the employee or the recipient may be able to bring a claim in negligence for any damage suffered as a result."

Yes I did. In respect of the 2 points you have referred to:

1. The "duty of care" appears to refer to the content of the reference, not the giving of a reference. "True, accurate and fair" means exactly that. It does not mean "a duty to disclose."

2. Similarly, the words are "fails to take care" not "fails to disclose" and "care" is not specific. The writer of a reference could be carefully observing their company policy, or carefully respecting a confidentiality in not disclosing something. The sentence (in the article) following your quoted one is clearly talking about an employee bringing an action.

I read the article you refer to as one where the author is avoiding saying the employer has to disclose any particular matter, and is aimed at a situation where the (ex) employee may be the claimant with regard to an unfair or inaccurate reference.

In any event, the article concludes:
"In summary, an employer does not:
• have to give a reference unless the employee has a contractual entitlement to one
• have to give a full and comprehensive reference."

(the situation may be different concerning TUPE transfers, other contractual arrangements and regulatory obligations)

Regards

[Simon Kirby]

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Vodabury with which I am in full agreement.

[Vodabury]

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Vodabury with which I am in full agreement.

Thank you, My Lord - I will see you later for a G&T in the Garrick!

Seriously, I am not giving an advice or a judgement, merely my interpretation of something I read and this is IMHO.

We are all used to having to disclose facts, to HMRC or Police for example. However, I do not see an overriding legal duty to disclose something to a third party with whom we have no previous connection or existing duty. If there is a relevant stated case that says otherwise, then I would be very interested to hear of it.

I think you are more likely to be sued for something you say, rather than for something you don't say. Hence, many companies being so brief in their references (if they give them at all).

Anyway, up to the individual company as to what they see fit.

Thanks.

[Nothing Much]

I am not an estate agent. But for a vendor there are rules.
Slightly on the topic of disclosure/ references.Do you not have to disclose,
animosities with neighbours over for example hedges, access, barking dogs.

[Vodabury]

I am not an estate agent. But for a vendor there are rules.
Slightly on the topic of disclosure/ references.Do you not have to disclose,
animosities with neighbours over for example hedges, access, barking dogs.

House conveyancing is a situation where 2 parties are entering into a contract with each other. A sellers' property information form has to be completed and questions answered truthfully, but it does not remove all responsibility from the buyer to make his own enquiries.