Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I am in the process of moving jobs.

I have just discovered, bizarrely, that it is company policy to provide no written response in request for references but instead to offer an informal chat on the telephone.

This has been done with my departing colleagues, and has just happened with a freelance employer who alerted me to the rather odd procedure.

Is this legal? Apparently it is being done on the advice of our chair, an intellectual property lawer.



Edited to add that googling suggests it is legal. Oh well.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/36278-employer-reference-advice/
Share on other sites

Hi BB.


Basically, not only may an ex-employer do as you describe above, but - contrary to popular belief - s/he is under no legal obligation to actually supply a reference AT ALL - UNLESS this was agreed beforehand (so check your employment contract). There are exceptions to this general premise but, from what I know of your job, I don't think these apply to you.


Note, it's a few years since I worked in employment law, but I have no reason to believe the situation has changed.

I think it has become standard practise now that references on paper only tend to confirm facts such as so and so worked here from this date to that date, they had X sick days and didn't brun the building down. This is because anyone has the right to request to see their references, making them not worth the paper they are written on.
Maybe you could work with your employer to write a reference that you both are happy with and agree can be forwarded on to any future employers. That is what I did when I left a job. That way it can be sent out without the need for any phone calls, unless of course your current employer likes chatting on the phone.

In my early twenties, I got a call from the US one afternoon at work, and had a fairly informal chat with the caller about a bloke who used to work in a different department. I painted a fairly rosy picture as he had been a good mate at the time.


It was halfway through the call that I realised this was effectively a reference and that it was totally against company policy for me to help (all requests go to HR who provide a standard written one). The caller was a company somewhere in Nevada.


My Managing Director was sitting right next to me and didn't suspect a thing.


Anyway what Laddy Much says, quite legal.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...