Advanced search


(13 Posts)
LunarSea Fri 02-Jun-06 15:33:30

Can anyone involved in recruitment tell me what your response would be if an applicants current/last employer only gives a factual ("we confirm x worked for us for y years as a ....") reference? Do you take it as meaning something negative if you don't get anything more personalised?
Having just been told that the office I work in is to close and I don't have a job any more (despite the fact that I report into a different office and I'd got a verbal agreement to be home based from September anyway - grrr) the company are banning managers from giving personal references, insisting that any requests go to HR who will provide "limited factual references only". Are they effectively preventing those of us affected from getting other jobs by doing this?

bossykate Fri 02-Jun-06 15:39:04

this is very common with large companies - i wouldn't have thought it would stop you getting another job, i imagine recruiters/hr in other organisations are familiar with such policies or have the same in their own organisation. hth and good luck.

HarpsichordCarrier Fri 02-Jun-06 15:44:55

no, it is very common practice to reduce risk. I would not consider it to be negative.
if you can, could you get someone to speak to a new employer on the phone? or, if you are sorting out a redundancy, ask for an agreed form of reference as part of the package?

LIZS Fri 02-Jun-06 15:46:25

Think that is fairly normal theses days with big companies and not thought of negatively.

Blackduck Fri 02-Jun-06 15:46:52

Nope - very common - if you can give two referees - one work and one personal. My company does the x has worked here for so long type ref - fairly standard...

LunarSea Fri 02-Jun-06 15:55:47

Thanks all. They just seem determined to make life even more difficult if possible - I'm also having a battle with them about whether maternity leave (and I didn't even take the additional unpaid bit, just the statutory) constitutes a break of service. According to them it does so I only get 4 weeks notice and 4 weeks redundancy, as opposed to 3 months if it isn't.

clumsymum Fri 02-Jun-06 16:11:27

I'm not a lawyer, but thought the whole point of stat mat leave was that it was a continuation of service...

I'd talk to Citizens advice about that.

bossykate Fri 02-Jun-06 16:14:28

i'm not a lawyer either, but mat leave definitely counts and continuous service! you can look it up on the dti website. stay strong and stick to your guns on this - they are wrong.

LIZS Fri 02-Jun-06 16:18:29

Again not a lawyer, but if you were still employed(no P45) and paid SMP and it has been classed as continuous service for holiday entitlement, pension , benefits etc then don't see how they can now argue otherwise.

FioFio Fri 02-Jun-06 16:19:06

Message deleted

FioFio Fri 02-Jun-06 16:20:06

Message deleted

yackertyyack Fri 02-Jun-06 22:27:43

Lunarsea.......I returned to work after taking Statutary and Additonal Maternity leave... so a year in total and it was all classed as continuous service. Reckon your company are just trying it on!!! Hope you get it sorted.

DominiConnor Sat 03-Jun-06 23:30:11

I'm a hjeadhunter who's also hired people, and I wouldn't care at all. Was my firm's policy to give zero-information references.

There have been some rather expensive legal cases where references have caused grief, and in many firms it is part of your contract not to give references.
HR do this, and say as little as possible, sometimes less.

I'm not a lawyer, but this maternity guff is digging them into a big hole. An HR who did that in my company would be marched out of the door.

Maternity leave is leave. This is a useful part of any legal case you want to raise against them for sex discrimination. (which is why I'd sack the HR with extreme prejudice).
Are you the only person being made redundant ?
Are any of the others male ?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: