mickyblue:
I think that sums it up. Cannot give a bad one but it has to be fair and accurate
No - it can be bad provided it is fair and accurate!
No - it can be bad provided it is fair and accurate!
spot on! sorry to disagree with another persons brother in law, but at the end of the day you go to court, there are two sides and both have the specialists but both are on opposing sides and will tell you what you want to hear in majority of cases,
I have been involved in a very similar situation where a guy took the company for unfair dismissal, he got the job fair and square on face value, a few weeks down the line certain things came to light where he had lied on his CV, so he got the chop, he took the company for unfair dismissal and his previous employer wincanton for providing a bad reference, result was dismissal no case as he had taken the job pending any references, and the other more or less got laughed at, the ref was true and accurate…
Right this is the last post I will make on this.
At no point have I said I have asked my brother in law what I have said has come from a book of employment law.
If you wish to believe what you have read on the internet all well and good I know what I would rather do and il stick to it so debate all you like and I wish you all well.
beetee07:
Try reading the employment law book any employer who gives a bad reference leaves them self wide open to prosecution. That why any decent employer will refuse to give a reference .
Wrong. They only do if what they say is untrue.
From the government:
Bad references:
If the worker thinks they’ve been given an unfair or misleading reference, they may be able to claim damages in a court. The previous employer must be able to back up the reference - eg, by supplying examples of warning letters.
So as long as they can back it up then yes they can.
beetee07:
Right this is the last post I will make on this.
At no point have I said I have asked my brother in law what I have said has come from a book of employment law.
No it hasn’t. If it has please post the reference to the law, i.e which statutory instrument or act, which section and which schedule for example:
Employment Act 2002 (c. 22), sections 29 to 33 and Schedules 2 to 4
After all if it is in a book of employment law that is how it will be referenced. We can then see for ourselves.
beetee07:
Roymondo:
beetee07:
You are so wrong an employer can’t give a bad reference it is against the law he can refuse to give a reference.Go on then - against which law? If one is provided, it has to be fair and accurate (and for this reason some employers are reluctant to give one) but there is nothing in English law to say that they cannot give a bad reference (provided it can be justified).
gov.uk website offers this advice:
"If they give a reference it:
must be fair and accurate - and can include details about workers’ performance and if they were sacked
can be brief - eg job title, salary and when the worker was employed"
Try reading the employment law book any employer who gives a bad reference leaves them self wide open to prosecution. That why any decent employer will refuse to give a reference .
It’s not against the law to give a bad reference. It’s against the law to include defamatory, opinionated, or untrue material in a reference that’s all.
If an ex-boss wrote a reference advising the new prospective employer that “This employee was sacked for stealing from the warehouse” or something, which actually went as far as being cautioned by the police, then that’s perfectly legit to say in a reference.
Remember - Toerags know their rights better than most employers, so I reckon the vast majority of employers will sack someone for theft rather than prosecute, not realising that “not prosecuting” sets them up for a backclaim if a bad reference is then given - having not gone through the proper legal channels to justify such a untested-in-court written declaration of denouncement.
The net result? - Staff caught thieving, gets the sack, no reference given at all. Boss has elected to “play it safe”. 
beetee07:
Right this is the last post I will make on this.
At no point have I said I have asked my brother in law what I have said has come from a book of employment law.
If you wish to believe what you have read on the internet all well and good I know what I would rather do and il stick to it so debate all you like and I wish you all well.
“A book of employment law”. What’s the title? Who’s the author? When was it published and by whom? I’d be interested to have a read of it.
beetee07:
Right this is the last post I will make on this.
At no point have I said I have asked my brother in law what I have said has come from a book of employment law.
If you wish to believe what you have read on the internet all well and good I know what I would rather do and il stick to it so debate all you like and I wish you all well.
Sounds like mmtm
All this hand-bagging because my mate was threatened with no reference…
What a load of tripe most of this thread is. Muckaway hasn’t got a contract but he has rights. He also has a job which judging by most if his posts he’s happy with. What odds would a bit if paper make? Having been in the job more than 5 minutes he has implied rights or whatever the correct term is.
Those of you banging on about risk ■■■■■■■■■■■■ and elf and safety tosh just consider this. If you had an ounce moe common sense there would be no need for health and safety.
What’s wrong with acting like a grown up and just getting stuff done.
As seems to be the norm a perfectly sensible reasonable thread has fallen into ■■■■■■■■■ berating each other and making themselves out to be something they’re not.
I’ve never had a contract for any job I’ve had and my terms and conditions basically say don’t treat me like a ■■■■■ pay me and I’ll keep turning up. Why do people have to take themselves and life so bloody seriously
Has this person ever been subject to a diaplinary hearing?
Would you employ this person again?
2 standard questions on reference forms.
If the answer is yes and no, then bye bye job…
beetee07:
At no point have I said I have asked my brother in law what I have said has come from a book of employment law.
If you wish to believe what you have read on the internet all well and good I know what I would rather do and il stick to it so debate all you like and I wish you all well.
So why on earth did you throw him into the discussion?
I am not basing what I wrote on “something I have read on the Internet” - rather on a couple of decades of real-world hands-on experience dealing with our legal system (both Criminal and Civil). If there is some substantial backing for your claim, please tell us what it is/where we can find it - Then if I am wrong I will be the first to hold my hands up and say “Sorry”. Simply flouncing off in a huff doesn’t do your argument justice.
end of the day alot of employers require references, they will probably take you on but in small print somewhere will be clause that the offer of employment is pending on the receipt of references, so even if you,ve been a naughty boy and your ex employer follows what is being said and refuses to give reference then your still out on your ■■■…
Ok time to confess thanks to all the people that bit.
To many to mention but I knew if I posted something stupid you’d all bite, it was getting boring with all the crap on here lately so though I’d see how many people would bite and you did with style.
I haven’t laughed so much in a long while and just so you know I did show this to my brother in law who is a contract law solicitor and he thought it hilarious.
So thank you one and all for brightening things up.
As a last bit and this is taken from a Union employment law book.
It si not law that an employer has to give a contract of employment but they are legally bound to give a statement of terms within 13 weeks of the commencement of employment.
Once again thanks oh what did my brother in law call you all ah yes bar room barristers but it was fun.
Raymondo I didn’t flounce off as you say I have just got back from Europe after being away all week and I don’t have internet access over there.
Where’s the joke?
I think the joke is that someone has realised he’s been posting a load of utter ■■■■■■■■ masquerading as fact and has realised he’s wrong. Instead of bowing out gracefully, he’s pretending it was all a joke. It is quite funny, when you look at it like that.
beetee07:
Ok time to confess thanks to all the people that bit.
To many to mention but I knew if I posted something stupid you’d all bite, it was getting boring with all the crap on here lately so though I’d see how many people would bite and you did with style.I haven’t laughed so much in a long while and just so you know I did show this to my brother in law who is a contract law solicitor and he thought it hilarious.
So thank you one and all for brightening things up.
As a last bit and this is taken from a Union employment law book.
It si not law that an employer has to give a contract of employment but they are legally bound to give a statement of terms within 13 weeks of the commencement of employment.
[quote="beetee07Sorry but your wrong AGAIN, it Clearly states 2 months (8 weeks) what union employment law book are you reading from, usdaw by any chance,cos there full of s h I t e as well.
[hallettandco.co.uk/assets/fi … ements.pdf]
(http://www.hallettandco.co.uk/assets/files/publications/Guide%20Note%20Employment%20Section%201%20Statements.pdf)
Read that it may help you and your imaginary brother in law
beetee07:
Ok time to confess thanks to all the people that bit.
To many to mention but I knew if I posted something stupid you’d all bite, it was getting boring with all the crap on here lately so though I’d see how many people would bite and you did with style.I haven’t laughed so much in a long while and just so you know I did show this to my brother in law who is a contract law solicitor and he thought it hilarious.
So thank you one and all for brightening things up.
As a last bit and this is taken from a Union employment law book.
It si not law that an employer has to give a contract of employment but they are legally bound to give a statement of terms within 13 weeks of the commencement of employment.Once again thanks oh what did my brother in law call you all ah yes bar room barristers but it was fun.
Raymondo I didn’t flounce off as you say I have just got back from Europe after being away all week and I don’t have internet access over there.
Which roughly translates as: “I showed this thread to my brother-in-law and he confirmed that I was indeed talking out of my back passage.”
Or, the shorter version: “■■■■, rumbled”.
And it is 2 months, not 13 weeks - I leave it up to you to find your own reference in the Ladybird Book of Employment Law.
Roymondo:
beetee07:
Ok time to confess thanks to all the people that bit.
To many to mention but I knew if I posted something stupid you’d all bite, it was getting boring with all the crap on here lately so though I’d see how many people would bite and you did with style.I haven’t laughed so much in a long while and just so you know I did show this to my brother in law who is a contract law solicitor and he thought it hilarious.
So thank you one and all for brightening things up.
As a last bit and this is taken from a Union employment law book.
It si not law that an employer has to give a contract of employment but they are legally bound to give a statement of terms within 13 weeks of the commencement of employment.Once again thanks oh what did my brother in law call you all ah yes bar room barristers but it was fun.
Raymondo I didn’t flounce off as you say I have just got back from Europe after being away all week and I don’t have internet access over there.Which roughly translates as: “I showed this thread to my brother-in-law and he confirmed that I was indeed talking out of my back passage.”
Or, the shorter version: “■■■■, rumbled”.
And it is 2 months, not 13 weeks - I leave it up to you to find your own reference in the Ladybird Book of Employment Law.
if you want to try and be pedantic it is 13 weeks which is taken from the employment law book published by URTU so if you would like to take it up with there legal team I’m sure they will make mincemeat out of you and for your information I was a shop steward so I know what to do to find the things out that I need to.
Obviously you can’t take a bit of banter so I future I suggest you hit the ignore button.
I have also been a shop steward for Unison, when push comes to shove the unions today know absolute bollox about anything other then their own ego,s… When I was shop steward the place I worked were enforcing a change of contract in T+C,s, I had researched that they could not do this in the way they intended, the Union main players disagreed with me, and after several meetings with workplace managers, staff and union, the union advised all staff to sign new contract as the employer offered £50 for doing so… I still disagreed and in the end a few of us stuck together to the end, result Union was totally wrong, the employer was totally wrong and the few of us that stuck with it had to be bought out of contract minimum of 25k each, due to the type of employment if everyone had ignored what the Union said and what the employer wanted they would have still been in the same job under their old T+C,s…