What are the laws about giving bad references?

[blindswelledrat]

Pub-talk aside - does anyone know the legalities of giving a bad reference or refusing to give one?

Furthermore, we get a lot of reference requests from companies who are already employing someone i.e. getting thier paperwork in order when its too late.
In this scenario I refuse to give a reference but I make it clear that it is purely because it is irrelevant as they can now see for themselves what the person is like. Is this legitimate?

Thanks

[dick dastardly]

My Mrs is a HR Manager for a multimational and their company rules are now to give a reference only saying the dates the person worked there. They've been in legal bother before for giving good references to wasters and bad references to decent employees for personal reasons. I don't know the specifics but it can be a bit of a minefield.

[PhillT]

As far as I am aware, you run the risk of defamation in a bad reference - better to decline to provide one if you have nothing good to say.
Afraid that might fall into the pub talk category, apologies if it does.

[Bat21]

Not giving a reference can be seen as being the same as giving a bad reference.
Whatever you say in a reference must be factualy correct.
To avoid problems most companies now confirm basic details of the employment and do not comment on performance or personal detail.

[FunkyGibbon]

All we do is give factual info. Employment dates, number of recorded absence incidents, final salary (if requested) etc.

Nothing opinion based.

We refuse to fill in the "grid" type references that some companies request.

[bga]

most places now just confirm the dates the individual worked there.

IIRC you can only put stuff in that is 100% correct, objective & you can back up if necessary. Most people avoid the hassle.

[Stephanie Plum]

FunkyGibbon said:

All we do is give factual info. Employment dates, number of recorded absence incidents, final salary (if requested) etc.

Nothing opinion based.

We refuse to fill in the "grid" type references that some companies request.

Ditto. People are so litigous these days that you can't commit an opinion - just facts.

[blindswelledrat]

dick dastardly said:

My Mrs is a HR Manager for a multimational and their company rules are now to give a reference only saying the dates the person worked there. .

Is that not the same as a bad reference?
If I recieved a reference like that for someone I would assume theyve nothing good to say about them ergo they were tossers.
Which incidentally the bloke in question is....

[Lurking Lawyer]

PhillT said:

As far as I am aware, you run the risk of defamation in a bad reference - better to decline to provide one if you have nothing good to say.

True - but truth is an absolute defence to a defamation claim.

A lot of employers these days just steer clear of the subject by giving nothing more than plain objective information like dates of employment, position etc simply because it avoids any kind of exposure which might arise from giving subjective personal impressions.

Google Spring -v- Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance - that's the leading case on the subject and there are some decent summaries out there on t'interweb.

[dick dastardly]

blindswelledrat said:

dick dastardly said:

My Mrs is a HR Manager for a multimational and their company rules are now to give a reference only saying the dates the person worked there. .

Is that not the same as a bad reference?
If I recieved a reference like that for someone I would assume theyve nothing good to say about them ergo they were tossers.
Which incidentally the bloke in question is....

I suppose it could be viewed as bad but in the eyes of the law it's sort of a neutral reference.

[Parakitamol]

What about those questionaire things new employers send out.

Questions such as 'would you employ this person again' are very telling without being defamatory.

[esselte]

FunkyGibbon said:

All we do is give factual info. Employment dates, number of recorded absence incidents, final salary (if requested) etc.

Nothing opinion based.

We refuse to fill in the "grid" type references that some companies request.

Is this OK to do? Is there nothing in the Data Protection Act about this? Just curious .....

[PhillT]

Lurking Lawyer said:

PhillT said:

As far as I am aware, you run the risk of defamation in a bad reference - better to decline to provide one if you have nothing good to say.

True - but truth is an absolute defence to a defamation claim.

But in order to successfully defend using justification doesn't one have to prove that the contentious statement is/was factually true, as opposed to comment? That can be a bit of a nightmare to do, I have heard.
Having said all that, my defamation law is a little rusty.

[Lurking Lawyer]

So is mine, Phil! But, yes, I think you're right.

I was presupposing that the person giving the reference would have been sensible enough to stick to saying things that were objectively provable.

[bga]

dick dastardly said:

blindswelledrat said:

dick dastardly said:

My Mrs is a HR Manager for a multimational and their company rules are now to give a reference only saying the dates the person worked there. .

Is that not the same as a bad reference?
If I recieved a reference like that for someone I would assume theyve nothing good to say about them ergo they were tossers.
Which incidentally the bloke in question is....

I suppose it could be viewed as bad but in the eyes of the law it's sort of a neutral reference.

My missus used to process references for a "big4" Accountancy firm. All of the references they give confirm dates or if asked number of sickdays.
>90% of the references they receive are the same. Apparently it's standard procedure in many industries.

[Leftie]

The research suggests references are one of the worst predictors of future job performance because either all the geese are swans to get rid, or some hacked off manager seeks revenege (pretty much as detailed above).

Most organisations now only state fact: dates and 5roles with no assertionon performance as there is a liability for slagging someone off at the least.

I think they have a use as just a tick box on key issues (sickess levels) and honesty (were they dismissed or asked to leave due to dishonesty) or to check out qualifications and experience (is it true they managed a £50 roject, won £2m of business, were top salesman 3 years running?).

In a nutshell, pretty much worthless.

[blindswelledrat]

Good info thanks Lurking and Phil.
Are you saying that the only come-back to bad references is a defamation suit then?
Does that mean that provided you do tell the truth there are no other penalties i.e. DTI regulations for example?

[Prof Beard]

In all my years, I have only ever seen one reference which said "we advise you not to employ this person" - the rest have all ranged from neutral to good...

[FunkyGibbon]

esselte said:

FunkyGibbon said:

All we do is give factual info. Employment dates, number of recorded absence incidents, final salary (if requested) etc.

Nothing opinion based.

We refuse to fill in the "grid" type references that some companies request.

Is this OK to do? Is there nothing in the Data Protection Act about this? Just curious .....

the question usually comes like "can you confirm that joe bloggs actually was on x000 pounds as stated in their application"

[planetdave]

FunkyGibbon said:

All we do is give factual info. Employment dates, number of recorded absence incidents, final salary (if requested) etc.

Even 'factual' material can be misleading. Absentee rates at my place are about double the national average....are the employees ALL taking the mick or does the company have the pastoral care qualities of Darth Vader