Bad reference...
Discussion
My wife is a primary school teacher and very recently received a job offer from another school, conditional on references.
It transpires that her current Head has written a less than positive reference, ultimately ticking the box "would recommend with reservations".
We have not seen the details or comments yet but, trying to remain objective as possible, we are struggling to see how this is anything other than vindictiveness from a young and out-of-her depth Headteacher.
She was obviously not pleased when my wife informed her as she has barely spoken a word to her since and in a recent observation, despite writing comments to the effect that each area was 'outstanding', subsequently ticked the 'good' boxes!
She has a history of taking constructive criticism or challenges to the way things are done at the school as personal attacks, stamping down on creative thought with an iron rule (plus her yes-men/women cronies). It was no suprise to me that she reacted in a totally unprofessional manner.
Typically my wife has achieved good and outstanding lesson observations and overall is a hard-working and conscientious worker. References from previous schools were excellent.
The only times she would admit she has let herself down is in her organisational skills in high-pressure situations - she was 'given' the role of subject leader for PE with zero support (PE eh? Easy - not quite!) and works 2 days a week. She was doing probably 4/5ths of a job in 2/5ths of the time and a few things slipped through the net - all resolved by her.
Anyway, enough of justifying my wife's ability. I wanted to check the law on references as there is so much bull about not being legally allowed to give a bad reference. I understand it has to be truthful and have evidence to back up any negative comments?
What courses of action are there if the reference is considered to be negligent or misleading?
It transpires that her current Head has written a less than positive reference, ultimately ticking the box "would recommend with reservations".
We have not seen the details or comments yet but, trying to remain objective as possible, we are struggling to see how this is anything other than vindictiveness from a young and out-of-her depth Headteacher.
She was obviously not pleased when my wife informed her as she has barely spoken a word to her since and in a recent observation, despite writing comments to the effect that each area was 'outstanding', subsequently ticked the 'good' boxes!
She has a history of taking constructive criticism or challenges to the way things are done at the school as personal attacks, stamping down on creative thought with an iron rule (plus her yes-men/women cronies). It was no suprise to me that she reacted in a totally unprofessional manner.
Typically my wife has achieved good and outstanding lesson observations and overall is a hard-working and conscientious worker. References from previous schools were excellent.
The only times she would admit she has let herself down is in her organisational skills in high-pressure situations - she was 'given' the role of subject leader for PE with zero support (PE eh? Easy - not quite!) and works 2 days a week. She was doing probably 4/5ths of a job in 2/5ths of the time and a few things slipped through the net - all resolved by her.
Anyway, enough of justifying my wife's ability. I wanted to check the law on references as there is so much bull about not being legally allowed to give a bad reference. I understand it has to be truthful and have evidence to back up any negative comments?
What courses of action are there if the reference is considered to be negligent or misleading?
This comprehensive product from the CIPD may assist; good luck!
http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/employment-law-...
http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/employment-law-...
Legend83 said:
What courses of action are there if the reference is considered to be negligent or misleading?
Is it actually factual though, this reference? And can you prove the bits that she's allegedly stuck the knife in on are complete fabrication? If what the old employer has said is accurate, then there's no comebacks either way.
andy-xr said:
Is it actually factual though, this reference? And can you prove the bits that she's allegedly stuck the knife in on are complete fabrication?
If what the old employer has said is accurate, then there's no comebacks either way.
Andy, half the problem is we only found out today and are yet to see the reference. Legally my wife can't demand to see it either. It's only because a good friend of hers is Assistant Head at the new school that she knows - fortunately said friend can vouch for my wife and the job should still be secure.If what the old employer has said is accurate, then there's no comebacks either way.
It's not going to much fun working for her current Head for another term though!
Legend83 said:
Andy, half the problem is we only found out today and are yet to see the reference. Legally my wife can't demand to see it either. It's only because a good friend of hers is Assistant Head at the new school that she knows - fortunately said friend can vouch for my wife and the job should still be secure.
It's not going to much fun working for her current Head for another term though!
If the offer goes ahead then strike it off as just one of those things, I've had it done to me and I'm lucky now as the company who did it have been bought out and the owner isnt there anymore. It's not going to much fun working for her current Head for another term though!
In my thinking I was planning to get around the wonky one with another instead, which worked, but my backup plan was to get the reference from the prospective employer and take it round to the old one with a poolball in a sock
Ever since Spring v Guardian Assurance (a House of Lords case that I lost during the mid 1990s), a reference that causes harm through negligence can be the basis for a claim for compensation.
It is not enough to show that the reference is incorrect. You have to show that it is malicious (very hard to prove) or negligent. You have to show actual loss caused by the reference.
An employer can give a negative reference, so long as the employer is careful in preparing it.
It is not enough to show that the reference is incorrect. You have to show that it is malicious (very hard to prove) or negligent. You have to show actual loss caused by the reference.
An employer can give a negative reference, so long as the employer is careful in preparing it.
rog007 said:
This comprehensive product from the CIPD may assist; good luck!
http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/employment-law-...
What was the point of posting that link? Do you suppose that the OP is a member of CIPD or is likely to become one (cost: £306) in order to resolve his current query? I might as well point to a line of expensive law books on a shelf and say to the OP "buy one of those". http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/employment-law-...
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 8th April 07:39
Legend83 said:
My wife is a primary school teacher and very recently received a job offer from another school, conditional on references.
It transpires that her current Head has written a less than positive reference, ultimately ticking the box "would recommend with reservations".
We have not seen the details or comments yet but, trying to remain objective as possible, we are struggling to see how this is anything other than vindictiveness from a young and out-of-her depth Headteacher.
She was obviously not pleased when my wife informed her as she has barely spoken a word to her since and in a recent observation, despite writing comments to the effect that each area was 'outstanding', subsequently ticked the 'good' boxes!
She has a history of taking constructive criticism or challenges to the way things are done at the school as personal attacks, stamping down on creative thought with an iron rule (plus her yes-men/women cronies). It was no suprise to me that she reacted in a totally unprofessional manner.
Typically my wife has achieved good and outstanding lesson observations and overall is a hard-working and conscientious worker. References from previous schools were excellent.
The only times she would admit she has let herself down is in her organisational skills in high-pressure situations - she was 'given' the role of subject leader for PE with zero support (PE eh? Easy - not quite!) and works 2 days a week. She was doing probably 4/5ths of a job in 2/5ths of the time and a few things slipped through the net - all resolved by her.
Anyway, enough of justifying my wife's ability. I wanted to check the law on references as there is so much bull about not being legally allowed to give a bad reference. I understand it has to be truthful and have evidence to back up any negative comments?
What courses of action are there if the reference is considered to be negligent or misleading?
This is very unusual in education. Generally speaking, if the head wants rid of a teacher for whatever reason they will give a glowing reference! It's very difficult to dismiss teachers, and moving them on is often the path of least resistance.It transpires that her current Head has written a less than positive reference, ultimately ticking the box "would recommend with reservations".
We have not seen the details or comments yet but, trying to remain objective as possible, we are struggling to see how this is anything other than vindictiveness from a young and out-of-her depth Headteacher.
She was obviously not pleased when my wife informed her as she has barely spoken a word to her since and in a recent observation, despite writing comments to the effect that each area was 'outstanding', subsequently ticked the 'good' boxes!
She has a history of taking constructive criticism or challenges to the way things are done at the school as personal attacks, stamping down on creative thought with an iron rule (plus her yes-men/women cronies). It was no suprise to me that she reacted in a totally unprofessional manner.
Typically my wife has achieved good and outstanding lesson observations and overall is a hard-working and conscientious worker. References from previous schools were excellent.
The only times she would admit she has let herself down is in her organisational skills in high-pressure situations - she was 'given' the role of subject leader for PE with zero support (PE eh? Easy - not quite!) and works 2 days a week. She was doing probably 4/5ths of a job in 2/5ths of the time and a few things slipped through the net - all resolved by her.
Anyway, enough of justifying my wife's ability. I wanted to check the law on references as there is so much bull about not being legally allowed to give a bad reference. I understand it has to be truthful and have evidence to back up any negative comments?
What courses of action are there if the reference is considered to be negligent or misleading?
Maybe the head wants your wife to stay!
Why did you even bother to ask the question? Bad reference, zero impact. Bumper shunt in car park, no damage. Trip over loose paving stone, no injury. Delivery two days late, no adverse impact on project. Doctor wrongly suggests infection, turns out to be virus, patient gets better. Cue 97,000 PH threads asking "What redress do I have?". I am in favour of rights, but a rights culture can go too far.
Breadvan72 said:
Why did you even bother to ask the question? Bad reference, zero impact. Bumper shunt in car park, no damage. Trip over loose paving stone, no injury. Delivery two days late, no adverse impact on project. Doctor wrongly suggests infection, turns out to be virus, patient gets better. Cue 97,000 PH threads asking "What redress do I have?". I am in favour of rights, but a rights culture can go too far.
blimey you're a grump today, haven't you ever just wanted someone else to understand your predicament and say don't worry it will be ok? you didn't have to answer or read it, it cost him nothing to post it and he gets a bit of closure from it.Breadvan72 said:
Why did you even bother to ask the question? Bad reference, zero impact. Bumper shunt in car park, no damage. Trip over loose paving stone, no injury. Delivery two days late, no adverse impact on project. Doctor wrongly suggests infection, turns out to be virus, patient gets better. Cue 97,000 PH threads asking "What redress do I have?". I am in favour of rights, but a rights culture can go too far.
Morning grumpy! Maybe he didn't know she still had the job when he posted?Breadvan72 said:
Why did you even bother to ask the question? Bad reference, zero impact. Bumper shunt in car park, no damage. Trip over loose paving stone, no injury. Delivery two days late, no adverse impact on project. Doctor wrongly suggests infection, turns out to be virus, patient gets better. Cue 97,000 PH threads asking "What redress do I have?". I am in favour of rights, but a rights culture can go too far.
Why did you not bother to read the question?"received a job offer from another school, conditional on references."
I did not know at the time I posted whether she would still get the job as a result of the bad reference. Admittedly she has a friend who works at the school who we knew would vouch for her but that is not a guarantee the job was secure.
Given I am up for redundancy at present, the security of my wife's job and any redress she may or may not have in the event of being able to prove the reference was in anyway negligent, was of interest to me.
I said thank you for the advice and I would question the necessity of your post above.
Legend, you need to stop referring to this reference as a 'bad reference'. It's not. It's factual and at worst might be considered less that flattering, but you'd have to be squinting quite hard to draw that conclusion.
Breadvan is spot on. Even if your wife had not got the job, it's unlikely to be as a result of "recommend but with reservations". It's more likely that the new board of governors and head thought there was a better suited person for the job at interview.
Breadvan is spot on. Even if your wife had not got the job, it's unlikely to be as a result of "recommend but with reservations". It's more likely that the new board of governors and head thought there was a better suited person for the job at interview.
Breadvan72 said:
There was no predicament. His wife applied for a job. She got the job. Er, that's it. First World Problems? How about First World Non Problems?
Normally I would agree with you but we are not all hard arsed so and so’s with the ability to allow professional criticism to flow off our backs like water, especially when it is not only inaccurate but also leaves others with a false impression of our abilities.In recent weeks I have spoken to someone who has achieved in 10 months more than they were tasked to achieve in 3 years (over £1m worth of savings for a start, with many £1,000's more identified in other areas that they are are not responsible for but which has come to their attention as a result of networking) yet has been told that that the CEO will not be replacing them when they move to a new job because the CEO has only ever seen them talking to people in corridors.
If I had been the employee I’m not entirely sure I would not have given the CEO a very large slice of my mind. Even if only for honour to be satisfied.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff