employment law

[75c]

What law did you study billericay?

Any deal that involves giving a favourable reference to an underperforming worker is illegal, and we're not talking civil law, it's a criminal offence and has been since 2006

Common sense if you think about it, you're helping someone to get a job by misrepresenting themselves.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Simondi

................

Many employers only give basic references like my last employer, RBS.
The ONLY reference they would give ( unless the person worked in a regulated role) stated
Name
Start Date
Leaving Date ( if applicable)
Reason for leaving ( if applicable)

The reasons for leaving were either
N/A, Resigned, Retired, Redundancy, Resigned pending disciplinary investigation/ meeting, Dismissed.

Agreed. I would also suggest that this is roughly the extent of the usefulness of a reference - a confirmation of the employment status between certain dates. Anything else is a subjective statement that is going to be coloured by many aspects including the performance and mindset of the person writing the reference.

I was once asked for a reference many years ago and as a way of making a lighthearted point, I wrote something along the lines of "He has not displayed any significant shortcomings as far as I am aware".

[billericaymgxpower]

Originally Posted by 75c

What law did you study billericay?

Any deal that involves giving a favourable reference to an underperforming worker is illegal, and we're not talking civil law, it's a criminal offence and has been since 2006

Common sense if you think about it, you're helping someone to get a job by misrepresenting themselves.

Did I mention "favourable?" The reference may include fact regarding attendance, punctuality and duration which, providing accurate records are maintained by the employer would be indisputable in any event they are challenged. Omitted, may be references to ability and effort for example as this is where their is risk of defamation. As you say, common sense or reasonable action.

[75c]

Originally Posted by billericaymgxpower

Did I mention "favourable?".

Well, what you said was

Originally Posted by billericaymgxpower

Many employers, following rid of troublesome employees may enter into a "compromise agreement" with an open reference. Keeps all parties safe and satisfied.

Which is an entirely different thing to your last post, which I note you ignored the question about where and when you studied law. For the avoidance of doubt, all NHS masters degrees now included a section on employment law, and it contains a very clear warning about the perils of what you describe as ''compromise agreements''

It references the fraud act 2006, specifically fraud by misrepresentation (section 2) and fraud by abuse of position, with the main focus being on the latter part of that, specifically:

"Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.

It's the primary reason why the NHS will only ever give a complete reference or no reference at all. They will not entertain any compromise agreement, nor will they leave questions blank.

[Simondi]

Originally Posted by wraymond

Safest way for an employer is to only give dates in a reference. That speaks volumes. The reason for dismissal is the big trap. Who would be an employer?

For instance: a chap two weeks into his job goes to work with his hair in a ‘man bun’ (I should be so lucky). Boss tells him it is unsuitable and ‘lets him go’. Next thing, industrial tribunal. Chap says ‘women can so why can’t I’?

There are that many isms and hate laws it’s not your own business any more. Employers have become unwilling PC funnels and are forced to suffer increased costs for legal staff to cover against wilful abuse. Payouts dwarf remuneration and a new and profitable industry grows.

In your example

Your chap who has worked 2 weeks has no recourse to a tribunal, so far as I'm aware. I believe he would have to have worked there for at least two years before he has the right to do so.
To be fair though, why can't he wear his hair in a bun if he so wishes?

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by Simondi

In your example

Your chap who has worked 2 weeks has no recourse to a tribunal, so far as I'm aware. I believe he would have to have worked there for at least two years before he has the right to do so.
To be fair though, why can't he wear his hair in a bun if he so wishes?

Help yourself!: http://www.itv.com/news/2018-08-06/f...-felt-bullied/

I'm guessing the action will be under discrimination laws where the compensation sums (if awarded) will likely be considerably higher. The charge of 'bullied' is indicative of the snowflake epidemic brought about by PC imperatives and is costing industry phenomenal sums which reduce profits and limit expansion - affecting commercial stability - as in the news just now.

The principle he is challenging is the right of the employer to dictate corporate dress policy for customer-facing representatives. The employer in this case is sufficiently experienced in the field and, purely in my view, perfectly entitled to have such a policy - subject of course to a panel finding for the employer.

If I were the boss he would be on his bike - certainly not one of my planes. He can have his hair however he likes but not at work providing his employment contract gave him the options stated in the report.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Avulon

Which is why no reference, or brief reference (i.e. confirmation of only dates and job description) is very telling....

not really as I think this is all BT give.

macfee2

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by 75c

I'm delighted you're considering finding a berth for Mr xxx in your organisation. May I suggest you make it a wide one?

I had to read this twice, first time I wondered what on earth you were on about. second time I got it

macafee2

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by Simondi

As said an employer can give a ' bad reference' however it absolutely must be factual.
Many employers would rather give a good reference as it's cheaper and less hassle. An employee can challenge a given reference if they feel it is inaccurate ( as opposed to them thinking it's unfair). As far as I'm aware this would need to be done legally)

Many employers only give basic references like my last employer, RBS.
The ONLY reference they would give ( unless the person worked in a regulated role) stated
Name
Start Date
Leaving Date ( if applicable)
Reason for leaving ( if applicable)

The reasons for leaving were either
N/A, Resigned, Retired, Redundancy, Resigned pending disciplinary investigation/ meeting, Dismissed.

if they give a good reference and the new employee turns out to be a nightmare could the employer be sued by current employer?

macafee2

[Simondi]

Originally Posted by macafee2

if they give a good reference and the new employee turns out to be a nightmare could the employer be sued by current employer?

macafee2

No idea tbh.
The standard reference the bank gave during my time there ( I assume it's the same still) avoids that problem