Help - poor reference now job offer refused

[bouncingbelle]

Don't know what to do! I posted a few months ago about the consistent bullying I was experiencing from my line manager at work. Things came to a head in February and I resigned, giving 4 weeks notice (which I didn't work as got signed off with stress). Had a meeting with my line managers boss and hr as to why I resigned and thought I had left on relatively good terms.

Got a new job then same week I resigned (so 6 weeks ago now). Job offer was conditional on the receipt of references. My line managers boss submitted a reference, as did two previous employers. I spoke to HR at the new job on Friday who told me that the references were all ok and she was waiting to hear from my new line manager about a start date.

But today I got a standard email through saying that my re fences weren't satisfactory and my job offer has now been withdrawn. This has to be from my last employer - can they do this? And How do things stand re benefits etc if I,Eve already quit my job? And will this bad reference stop me getting any job now? But I don't understand why it's bad - my line manger was bullying ME and I was the one who QUIT - I wasn't fired! What should I do???

Contact the company who made you an offer of employment and ask them to provide you with a copy of the reference, as per section 7 of the Data Protection Act. They don't have to let you see it, but they may and if the reference is unfair you may be able to challenge it.

You need a to get a copy. If they have said anything untrue you can take action.

Get a copy of the reference and take action!
We have someone who deliberately gives people bad references at work just because she can...and is a horrid woman (she is a bully).

What action can I take? I,ve requested a copy of the reference.

I feel sick, I don't know what to do, I partly quit because I'm undergoing fertility treatment at the moment and I'm convinced the stress of I working for this bitch wasn't helping, felt confident about my capabilities in the new job (also a local authority so would have got leave etc for the treatment) but now I'm stressed to the max again and my next round of treatment is due to start next month and a non-la employer isn't going to have to be as accommodating!

I knew she would do something like this. She constantly put the blame on me to cover for her own inability to do the job and despite me. Raising it with senior management on several occasions I don't know what I can do - it's my word against hers.

Are you in a union?

Is your previous company big enough to have an HR dept? Did you ever raise the issues about bullying while you were there?

If they do have an HR team I suggest you write to the most senior person saying that you understand they have provided a reference which is not satisfactory to your new employer, and that this cannot be a fair reflection of your time at the company. Insist on seeing a copy and if it is not fair then insist they send an accurate version or you will take legal action.

Poor you what an awful and unfair situation. I cannot believe that grown adults behave like playground bullies.

Thanks all - just venting here is helping as I'm too ashamed to tell anyone is real life.

Yes, it was a local authority I worked for and hr were made aware of the bullying on several occasions. I even had an exit meeting with hr and senior management where they were talking about the new people I would be working with and wishing me well, which is why this has come so out of the blur.

I have requested a copy from the new employer. I don't want to go back to the stress but I can't let her away with this.

recent court of appeal decsision suggests you could claim victimisation:

Court of Appeal
Published April 15, 2014
Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and Another
Before Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Ryder and Lord Justice Underhill
Judgment February 26, 2014
The Equality Act 2010 had to be read as prohibiting acts of victimisation such as writing a bad reference committed against a former employee.
The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing the appeal of Mr P. Jessemey against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Mr Recorder Luba, QC, Mr B. Beynon, Mr S. Yeboah) ([2013] ICR 807) which dismissed his appeal against a decision by the employment tribunal sitting at Reading dismissing his claim against his former employer Rowstock Ltd and its director Mr Davis for victimisation pursuant to section 108 of the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant had brought claims alleging age discrimination and unfair dismissal for reasons of retirement. After the employer gave him an unfavourable reference, he brought a further claim alleging that he had been victimised because of the tribunal proceedings he had initiated.
On the victimisation claim, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal’s decision that, although the poor reference had been given because of the tribunal proceedings, section 108(7) of the 2010 Act precluded former employees from pursuing claims of post-employment victimisation and it therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
In a later case, Onu v Akwiwu, a differently constituted Employment Appeal Tribunal (Mr Justice Langstaff, Mr B. Beynon and Mr P. Gammon) ([2013] ICR 1039) came to the opposite conclusion. The Court of Appeal heard appeals in both cases on the same occasion and took into account submissions from counsel in Onu but treated the instant case as the lead case. It gave a separate substantive judgment in Onu on other unrelated issues ([2014] EWCA Civ 279).
Ms Karon Monaghan, QC and Mr Christopher Milsom for the claimant; Mr John Crosfill and Mr Jason Braier for the employer; Mr James Robottom for the claimant in Onu; Mr Jake Dutton, solicitor, for the employers in Onu.
LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL said that the issue raised was of practical importance because claims by former employees that their employer had acted to their prejudice following the termination of the employment, typically, though by no means only, by giving a bad (or no) reference, were not at all uncommon.
It was common ground that, in the light of the wider contextual material, the apparent failure of the statute to proscribe post-termination victimisation was a drafting error. The issue then became how far it was right to go to correct that undoubted error.
Since the relevant provisions of the 2010 Act were intended to give effect to the United Kingdom’s obligations as a matter of European Union law the court had in construing those provisions to apply the special approach required in such a case (and where section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was in play) which had been most authoritatively expounded by the House of Lords in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (The Times June 24, 2004; [2004] 2 AC 557).
Given the existence of the EU obligation to proscribe post-employment victimisation, the only question was whether it was “possible”, in the sense elucidated in Ghaidan, to imply words into the 2010 Act which achieved that result. It plainly was. The implication of such a prohibition would not only be consistent with the fundamental principles of the Act and “go with its grain”: it in fact represented what the draftsman had intended.
Accordingly there was no obstacle in the provisions of section 108 to an implication which would give effect to the EU obligation to proscribe post-employment victimisation.
In Onu Mr Justice Langstaff had based his decision on a purely domestic approach to construction. The present case was a plain case of a drafting mistake and a “rectifying construction” such as in Inco Europe v First Choice Distribution (The Times March 10, 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 586) was appropriate.
It seemed that in the particular case of a frank drafting error, that was, where the court could be satisfied that the draftsman had positively intended to include a provision which in fact he had omitted, there was no real difference between the Ghaidan approach and the approach based on purely domestic principles.
It would be different in a case where no such intention had been established and the argument was simply that the implication sought was necessary in order to comply with EU law or the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Ryder and Lord Justice Maurice Kay agreed.
Solicitors: Equality and Human Rights Commission; Lawdata Ltd, Biggleswade; Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, Islington Law Centre; Waldegraves.

I know somebody who was a truly terrible employee. I mean an absolute nightmare, the last person you would want in a company (not saying you are by the way!).

Several jobs later from when I worked with him (he normally changed jobs every three months, he never got through probation periods) he was given a poor reference from his last job that made another employer think twice. He took the company that gave him the poor reference to a tribunal and got a surprisingly large payout.

Again, not saying you are a bad employee in any way, but just saying that there is action you can take when given a bad reference.

He really was shocking. In a customer service role he deleted all emails that came in after 4pm so he didn't have to deal with them. He also turned the ringer off on his phone at the same time!

Thanks for the extra info, I'm going to read it all properly tomorrow. I was in the job for 5 years (3 of them quite happily before bitch boss came along) so they had plenty of time to get rid of me if they had wanted!! I always thought bitch boss wanted her friend to get my job - and yesterday it was confirmed that this other person HAS got my job!

Are you a teacher? This kind of bullying is absolutely rife. You have my every sympathy. Good luck with your next course of action.

I get lots of reference requests, and some of them ask how much time an employee has had off sick over the last 12 months - could it be something like that that's the problem?

Contact your union or an employment lawyer. She cannot give you a bad reference if you have done nothing to warrant one. Go get the bully!

I had 4 weeks off sick, but that was over 3 occasions - 2 days for a miscarriage, 1 day sickness bug and the rest was on the one occasion where I had surgery to remove an organ, so I suppose it could relate to that - but surely not? It's not like I was off every Monday and Friday!?

Threepiecesuite - how did you guess?!!!

if you are a teacher get the union involved

I'm a teacher too and have been there. I'm sorry this is happening to you.

Sorry you are going this.

It might be the sick leave. If they just asked for the number rather than details? I think the "average" is generally considered 10, so 20 is obv double that.

Hope they share the reference.

Going through this.

Most of the reference requests I get just ask how many days - no space to comment on whether it was reasonable or not. Was the 4 weeks of sickness absence that you mention in addition to your notice period, when you said you were signed off with stress got four weeks? If it is 8 weeks altogether, that might well ring some alarm bells for the new HR people, I'm afraid.

It may be the sick leave. That is a lot of sick leave and would worry many employers.

An employer would make and then withdraw an offer of employment based on previous sickness absence, without any knowledge of the details of the absence?

Surely that's a suit waiting to happen? IANAL, but surely if they do this to someone who turns out to be protected under the Equality Act, they're toast.

In fact, OP you might yourself be protected, depending on whether the operation was to do with a longstanding condition. Mention it when you speak to your union.