To be honest when giving a reference?

[ToffeeSauce]

A woman in my team is leaving to go a rival business. When she handed in her notice I was pleased, as her performance had been pretty dreadful for a long time - slapdash and chaotic work, refusal to take responsibility for her area, lack of focus etc. She's very sweet though, and a nice person to have around the place. However, the area she covers in my team is too important for this to continue, so I had begun a formal disciplinary process with her, all agreed with by my boss and HR. Obviously not pleasant, hence why I was relieved when she resigned.

I've now been sent a reference request from her new employer, and it's much more detailed than I would have expected. It doesn't ask for me to 'write' anything, which I could have fudged a bit, but instead to give specific ratings for her performance in various areas, and asks the direct question: Would you hire this person again?

The truthful answer is obviously 'No', but I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to sabotage this woman's career (and in a self-interested way I very definitely want her to leave!) but I also don't want to lie. WWYD?

Absolutely pass to HR
Most references will just contain name, job title and from and to dates of employment
Which is great if you have left under a cloud but not so good if you have been fabulous

Its such a double edge sword. Ive been elated when certain members of past teams have handed in their notice and ive gone on to give them a positive reference.

Ive also hired some right rotters who have glowing references.

I had a senior manager tell me to be honest because once a person has handed in their notice we are under no obligation to rehire them and we have a duty of car to our profession to not bungle some other company with ineptitude...seems cruel but i guess the stand needs to start somewhere.

Puppy I would always advise against making any subjective comment in a reference because if the employee is crap in their new job, the new company could effectively sue your company for providing a negligent or misleading reference.

Cat while there is no law preventing a company for giving a bad reference as in no legislative Act as such, what there IS however, is case law where employees have successfully sued their employers/former employers for providing negligent, misleading or defamatory references.

A person giving a reference owes a duty of care, so an employee can claim damages for negligent misstatement if he incurs loss as a result. An employee/former employee can sue on the grounds of tort, contract and employment law. In TSB Bank Ltd v Harris [2000] IRLR 157 it was held that an employee (still in employment) discovering that misleading references were being given about her could leave and claim constructive dismissal on the basis of breach of the implied term of trust and respect. And that is just one example of where things can go massively wrong when giving subjective opinion or too much information in a reference. It has also been held that an employer should not give "half the story" in a reference where it would create a misleading impression resulting in damage to the employee - so saying that "disciplinary proceedings have been started..." but saying no more would fall into this category and open the employer up to legal action by the employee.

There are plenty more cases/examples I could provide but I'm sure the above makes the legal position clearer.

Send it to HR and get a factual one. I am assuming you don't work with children or vulnerable people. I believe the rules are different for what people are required to state in references for these roles in some circumstances.

In any case it's better to let your employer work through what they want to say about her, given the legal implications.

Seems like the days of a "glowing reference" are over then.

It's better this way - I've had a former manager threaten me with a bad reference as she didn't want me to leave (knew it would cost a fortune to replace me with someone with similar skills for that salary)- she's not from U.K. so had no idea of what is the norm here now with references.

I hadn't done anything wrong and had been excellent at doing my job but she made unreasonable demands and I'd called her on it. I was offered a more interesting job paying higher salary and she kept threatening, then she got the actual reference form which was a load of generic questions about was I punctual and had there been any disciplinary proceedings. So she couldn't lie about anything as there was no room for personal comment - I got the job and left. I know she has since had trouble keeping any member of staff longer than a year!

Thanks all for your very well-informed advice - wow I had no idea this was such a potential minefield! I shall pass onto HR and steer well clear. I feel reassured that I'm not doing anything morally questionable by not telling them the full facts...

Honestly Puzzledandpissedoff, I wouldn't assume anything from that in my own industry as it's very much the norm - everywhere I've worked in the last 15 years has been standard references only. They would possibly refuse to reference someone who has been fired for serious gross misconduct type issues but other than that, mediocre thru fantastic all get the same reference.

Childcare, on the other hand...very specific references thanks to safer recruitment guidance which makes it a complete tightrope. Employer code of conduct requires you to give and request complete and honest references, recent guidance has sample reference request forms which are pretty damn detailed...but you're still open to getting your ass sued.

I've given a genuinely positive reference for a very good employee. I was able to include things like "We have a performance system of excellent, good, and unsatisfactory - each year X's performance has been judged to be good or excellent". I was also able to say thinks like "I have always found X punctual and reliable.". No one could say this is misleading or negligent if I am telling the truth.

OP - The best thing is to speak to HR. They will know what the correct approach is in your organisation. Plus it is obviously a riskier business if you are wanting to give a negative reference. But if you do need to then I think you do need to be frank.

Seems like the days of a "glowing reference" are over then.

No, they still exist ... but not in writing. Agree with pp that if you want more than HR standard dates and numbers you need to call a personal referee.

Lots of companies won't let employees give a personal reference in a work capacity, mind you, so often it would be with a previous colleague or trusted friend.

I've declined to give a personal reference before. It was awkward at the time but we're all fine now.

What I'd do - have done - is to send the form back "uncompleted" with a generic letter attached giving dates of employment and salary and nothing else

I can almost guarantee that a future employer worth their salt would work out exactly what that means

Nonsense - such generic references are increasingly the norm

I turned myself inside out for a woman who not only sacked me but implied she'd give me a bad ref. I just got a notification that a garda vetting had neen carried out on me so im praying they dont ring my old boss. She doesnt understand that she was the problem but she had the power to destroy future opportunities too. I hope they dont ring that company. It is on my cv but manager not named as a referee.
Those of you in managerial positions pleasr have the common decency not to ruin somebody's future opportunities, and the self-awareness to realise that you might have been part of the problem. My old boss criticised me and sighed and tutted. I tried so hard. I had a stutter by the time she let me go.

Just seen this.

Pass to HR as others have said.

They will write an anodyne reference along the lines of A worked here from X to Y. She had Z number of days off sick..

Do not do anything else.

Ex-manager in a large firm here. HR policy that a formal reference (from the company) could ONLY come from HR and would be "X worked here from xx/xx/xx to xx/xx/xx and was paid £X". A personal reference could be given so long as it was NOT on firm-headed paper and was made clear that it was a personal reference.

The dates only reference is standard where I work.
I've just once written a reference personally though, for someone who already left (to go to another country before finding a job). They wanted me to imply I'd been their boss ; I hadn't so refused, but gave them a good (and entirely truthful) reference as an ex colleague. Apparently they got the formal job offer within an hour of me sending it!
Would very likely refuse if anyone asked where I couldn't truthfully say good things about them.

Part of my role is over seeing referencing for new hires- I second what a previous poster said about the best way to get an accurate assessment of previous performance etc was to pick up the phone and give an ex employer a call.

We had one chap who had two or three standard reference letters- when we called his old manager to verify one of them, he was only too happy to tell us on the QT that the applicant had been harassing a female colleague and was being investigated for theft. Probably not a good idea on his part, but we were massively grateful for his honesty.

Recently though we had to tell a applicant that their offer had been revoked after reference checks were completed (her old manager told us she kept letting under 18s on the tanning beds...). She got a solicitor involved who sent a threatening letter demanding compensation for loss of income, which we went back with a resounding "No." to.

I absolutely believe you, StatisticallyChallenged and Aridane, but the excellent example about childcare surely illustrates that a lot depends on what sector we're talking about

In my own recruitment company I dealt with specialist healthcare providers where a much greater level of detail was most definitely expected. This is why I suggested that a generic reference would be a clear giveaway, but I do of course appreciate that every industry is different

Where I work, we had one reference which included 'feel free to call me to discuss this further' which was indeed code for 'don't touch with a barge pole, but I can't leave a paper trail'. So that's one option.

When DH last got a job (within the last year), the agency/employer (not sure which) wanted phone numbers for all referees; they didn't want written references at all. Which may indicate that they know they won't get useful information in writing.

OP, if you have an HR department, I'd definitely ask them.

Those of you in managerial positions pleasr have the common decency not to ruin somebody's future opportunities, and the self-awareness to realise that you might have been part of the problem.

It's not always as straight forward as that, those of us who write references for employees who will be caring for vulnerable individuals have a duty of care towards the people they are applying to care for.

Agree with Sauvingnon - we all leave jobs - sometimes they were just a bit shit jobs with shit bosses.

Why should the previous crap employer get to continue to harass their former employee after they left?

If you were following 'disciplinary' then surely you should be glad the employee ups and leaves - and wave them on their way?

The problem with saying: give me a call if you want to discuss further, wink wink is that anyone following up on that could be drawn in to hot legal water. It's a difficult balance - I have worked for some appalling people but also been in jobs I wasnt terribly suited to. Rather than getting a debrief on the past (unless of course the person has done something illegal) really I think employers should ensure that their assessment procedures are robust for THEIR company and THEIR role. We do lots more than just interviews for example and it does actually help identify people who are suitable. A reference would be a poor substitute.

Ex-manager in a large firm here. HR policy that a formal reference (from the company) could ONLY come from HR and would be "X worked here from xx/xx/xx to xx/xx/xx and was paid £X". A personal reference could be given so long as it was NOT on firm-headed paper and was made clear that it was a personal reference.

My old firm had virtually the same policy. We also had to specify that it was a character reference, not a performance reference.

This enabled me to give a good reference to a former team member who'd been a very strong performer. But I would never risk providing a bad reference that way - you never know who you're talking to. I remember years ago a colleague telling me that whenever he left a job he'd get a friend to request a reference so that he could find exactly what was said.

SauvignonBlanc, I find it appalling though, that you would have no duty of care to the former employee. It's an abuse of power. My old boss did not recognise that she made me nervous. She refused to acknowledge that my so-called training was just sitting with a bunch of old-timers who didn't really want to pass on the knowledge. Nor did she acknowledge that my learning period occurred during the busiest time (Christmas), nor did she acknowledge that she held me to a higher bar than the people who'd been there for between 10 and 15 years. When they made a mistake she empathised with them for having been hoodwinked by the public and yet when a member of the public got one over on me she tutted me. This woman has a huge blind spot. She is one human being with her own biased view, so that ''duty of care'' bit is open to so much subjectivity that it is not right to allow it to infect somebody's future.

Mind you, I am slightly heartened reading this. Since January I have been paralysed, not knowing how to step around the fact that this woman would poison a future employer against me, despite the fact that I tried so hard while i was there.

The imperiousness of feeling that you owe a duty of care to a business over an individual unemployed person's future capability to support them self, it's just awful.

Any requests go straight to HR as they know exactly what they should/should not include