References

[Abba17]

I was suspended from work pending investigation in May and advised begining of July I needed to attend a hearing in July. In the meantime I was on sick with a doctors certificate and had resigned from my post. I applied for other positions and secured a role. Ex employer was approached for a ref 16 Jun & chased on several occasions, eventually they received a reply stating info could not be given without employees position, this was done 2 July by email. 9 July still no reference so HR contacted by telephone & advised no reference request had previously been made. Hearing took place without me being present due to ill health and my employ was terminated, this letter/advise was not received until a week later. A reference was finally produced on 23 July but stated Dismissed.
Legally shouldnt the reference state resigned as I had done so a month previously and considering the length if time taken to complete the investigation?
Thankyou

[teaboy2]

Re: References

Did you receive any letter confirming your resignation had been accepted?

Though reading what you have said, your current employer dismissed you due to lack of reference, and said dismissal was prior to any reference from your previous employer being forthcoming! So regardless of what the reference stated, it didn't result in your dismissal as the employer dismissed you prior to reference being received anyway!

[stevemLS]

Re: References

Did you receive any letter confirming your resignation had been accepted?

Though reading what you have said, your current employer dismissed you due to lack of reference, and said dismissal was prior to any reference from your previous employer being forthcoming! So regardless of what the reference stated, it didn't result in your dismissal as the employer dismissed you prior to reference being received anyway!

I think this misunderstands the OP's situation.

As far as I understand what they say, they haven't actually taken up the new position.

Employer 2 wanted references and chased them several times, when the reference was finally forthcoming it stated OP had been dismissed. OP believes that reference should have stated that they resigned as their resignation pre-dated their dismissal.

My own view is that the reference could properly have said "Resigned pending investigation for gross misconduct which would have lead to their dismissal."

On a pragmatic basis, however, I don't believe it would make any difference to Employer 2's view of matters.

[teaboy2]

Re: References

I think this misunderstands the OP's situation.

As far as I understand what they say, they haven't actually taken up the new position.

Employer 2 wanted references and chased them several times, when the reference was finally forthcoming it stated OP had been dismissed. OP believes that reference should have stated that they resigned as their resignation pre-dated their dismissal.

My own view is that the reference could properly have said "Resigned pending investigation for gross misconduct which would have lead to their dismissal."

On a pragmatic basis, however, I don't believe it would make any difference to Employer 2's view of matters.

You could be right regarding situation, but the OP wasn't very clear and it sounded to me as the new employer had dismissed them pending failure of any reference!

Though either way it makes no difference, but the OP does need to challenge the ex-employers reference given they resigned and were not dismissed!

[stevemLS]

Re: References

Though either way it makes no difference, but the OP does need to challenge the ex-employers reference given they resigned and were not dismissed!

That is what I was driving at pragmatically. Would it make any real difference if the reference said:

"Resigned whilst under investigation for gross misconduct."

or

"Resigned whilst under investigation for gross misconduct, which continued after OP's resignation and which would have resulted in dismissal."

Both would be fair and accurate.

A bare "Resigned" is not accurate and could be taken as misleading.

[teaboy2]

Re: References

But the issue here is the reference said "Dismissed" that is inaccurate and therefore libel - Yes it wouldn't make a difference in respect of the current issue, but stating "dismissal" instead of "resigned" (not necessary misleading as fact of the matter is they did resign - Giving neatrual references agreed under settlement agreements could be misleading too for not stating "resigned under investigation" in constructive dismissal dispute) or "resigned under investigation"!

But outright stating "dismissed" when they actually resigned is not accurate (and therefore libelous) as you can not dismiss them if they have resigned - Though it also depends on whether the employer accepted the resignation or rejected it. Hence why i asked the OP if they had written letter from employer confirming their resignation had been accepted?! If the resignation was not accepted then its likely they dismissed the OP in the OP's absence!

[stevemLS]

Re: References

It is a long way from defamation particularly since the 2013 Act which requires there to be "serious harm" whereas the harm here is no different to that which either of the more accurate alternatives I mentioned would cause.

[teaboy2]

Re: References

It is a long way from defamation particularly since the 2013 Act which requires there to be "serious harm" whereas the harm here is no different to that which either of the more accurate alternatives I mentioned would cause.

Yes - Hence why i said from the start it wouldn't make any difference since the reference was received after the OP was dismissed, and therefore dismissed for lack of any reference not because of what the reference stated in it!

Though it will proven them getting future work, so much like an inaccurate default on your credit file, you can sue for damages in light of the serious harm it places on your ability to find future employment. Though you would have to show you had asked the employer to correct the inaccurate reference, and that they had refused!