To be honest in my reference letter?

[IamAporcupine]

I have been asked to provide a reference letter for an employee who recently left my team. She has already been offered a new job in a completely different field. This is fortunate as her performance in her previous role was very poor; we lost time and money thanks to her lack of skills.

The form has a "would you re-employ this person?" I want to be honest and just say "No". I can explain that I believe this field of work was not for her, and that she will very likely perform well in her new job.

AIBU?

It can be libel if you prevent someone from getting a job with a poor reference - they can actually sue you and you'd need to prove the things you've said are true. It's a very silly thing to do - most employers now recognise the legal risks and only confirm employment dates and title for everyone as a blanket rule to stop the employer and employees being sued. I'm surprised you'd consider doing this and potentially wrecking your own job over it!

But as someone who works in academia you know that the overwhelming number of poor performers shuffle around different roles unchallenged for decades so you know it doesn’t reflect badly on OP, and in fact, even if it does there are no consequences

A fantasy? If OP stops this women getting a job via a poor reference she could easily be sued for loss of employment and her company would be liable for a lot of loss income. Do you work in management? Everyone knows this...

And no, I might be a bit stupid, but I'm definitely not a nasty piece of work. I do not intend to jeopardise her new position at all.

You're on a power trip though which says more about you than you probably realise.

I wouldn't tick Yes as I would consider that dishonest. I'd leave it blank. Is there really no policy on references? I'd answer dates of employment, reason for leaving, but be uncomfortable answering that question.

If at all possible I'd pass the reference on to someone else to do (HR / Accounts / someone who could give factual answers from the person's employment record but no more), but it doesn't sound as if you have that option!

Yes but it’s up to the institution if they want that risk to sit with staff rather than HR. They don’t care, as long as they don’t have to do the work.

I don't understand this statement. I'm referring to the risk of litigation that OP opens up by giving an opinion on a form. If her opinion prevents this person from getting hired, she can be sued, the school can be sued, the board members can be sued etc all because of a risk. All could then be held liable for defence and award costs if the court finds in favour of the former employee. There should be a D&O policy in place which can give legal advice before action is taken. The prudent route, for OP, is to just let it go. However, if she is that compelled to consider filling out this section, I would highly recommend she get a professional opinion of authority so when it all goes wrong, OP has a defence i.e. other professionals who know more than me signed this off etc.

The woman has already got the job. For the nth time, it's academia. It's not a company.

Surely she's been offered the job subject to references? So the offer could be rescinded.

Ah ok so you do just have a chip on your shoulder as a result of bad managers. Shame.

Correct.

Op its because you have said she will probably do very well in this new role, so nothing will be gained from potentially putting doubt in their mind before shes even started.

And, there's the point (despite how unpalatable it seems to some posters) that poor performance can be subjective and down to bad management of the situation, and/or just not the right fit, which isnt just the employees fault, again despite how much poor managers wish it was.

She's got a job offer subject to references. If they rescind the offer because of OP's reference, OP and her employer could be sued for a lot of money.

It doesn't matter if it's academia or another company, this is the law for all employers. I don't know why you've said that?

I have written reference letters. I would always put yes. Because they are not asking for context. Was she that terrible that yoh would never in any context reemploy her? Id their hiring process is relying on that one queation then they arent very thorough. People can hate a job or not be in the right space. Change roles and flourish.

I would check your company policy on providing references and go with that. Our policy is a "no" with it isn't our policy to re-employ. This is a standard regardless of whether they were any good or not.

If you read OP's posts, yes, she clearly was that terrible that OP would never herself wish to work with her again.

She has already been offered a new job in a completely different field. This is fortunate as her performance in her previous role was very poor; we lost time and money thanks to her lack of skills.

she said she knew XYZ techniques, and she didn't. We provided as much support as we could, discussed her protocols, etc but she was just not interested or organised or capable enough.

She was a poor fit, lied about her abilities, and was disinterested, disorganised, and incapable of performing her previous roles. She may or may not be better suited to this position in a different field. It is a very delicate situation, really - not helped by people projecting accusations of spite and so forth onto the OP.

Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware one was duty bound to lie about factual situations.

Dont make someones life worse.

You don't lie - but it's sensible to not put anything negative in references. And most employers have a policy that they will only confirm employment dates and job title for this reason.

If you want to put anything negative in a reference, you MUST speak to your HR department first to cover yourself/or get it signed off by someone more senior - otherwise if you were sued likely the employer would just say OP didn't follow company procedure for references and her job would be in trouble. If she's got it signed off internally at least she has a defence. Imo it's just definitely not worth it

If the company have delegated authority to managers to do references the have also accepted the risk of this. The organisation itself have already decided to accept the risk that managers will say what they like.

also the it’s really not a big deal if they get taken to tribunal bloody hell 😁 anyone would think this is some institutional level emergency.

I get that.

Can I ask you how exactly the poor performance described could be due to bad management?

If someone leaves equipment unnecessarily on, does not order supplies in time, is disorganised and does not understand basic aspects of their work despite being told, shown, etc - whose fault is that?

And no, before you ask if a formal warning was raised, no HR would laugh at me if I suggested such a thing

“otherwise if you were sued likely the employer would just say OP didn't follow company procedure for references and her job would be in trouble.”

OP has said multiple times she is following their company procedure

I was speaking generally about managers doing references that indicate poor performance (how it can be subjective etc), not about your situation.

I highly doubt that OP's company has a written policy that they are happy for managers to make negative and/or potentially defamatory statements in employee references and they accept full liability for their managers doing so...

if the policy is that managers write the references with no oversight from Hr then that’s that. They’ve chosen to take the risk.