A bad reference can be costly
Particularly if a reference has been previously agreed between the ex employer and employee
£16,265.10 is an expensive reference!
Many employers now restrict themselves to providing neutral, factual references for ex-staff because the penalties for providing an untruthful or disputed reference can be severe.
Here’s a tale that should send a warning shot across the bow of any employer who sets out to damage or hinder the future work prospects of an ex-employee.
Ms Righetti worked for BDW Trading Limited, better known as the house builder Barrett Developments. She had previously made a claim against her employer in 2019 for sexual harassment, victimisation and personal injury arising from discrimination.
The claim was settled before it made it as far as the tribunal. The settlement was brokered via ACAS and a formal agreement, called a ‘COT3’, was entered into between the parties. In exchange for a financial settlement the terms of the agreement were kept confidential and Ms Righetti’s employment was terminated.
When negotiating settlement terms, the issue of a reference to be provided to future prospective employers is generally agreed. It can be useful to prevent either side making disparaging comments when discussing their working relationship or providing references. In this case Barratt’s and Ms Righetti agreed a mutually acceptable reference to be used as and when a reference was requested.
Ms Righetti applied for a role at another company (Banks) and, following two interviews, was offered a job attracting a salary of £60k a year. She was advised by her recruitment consultant to seek a higher salary of £65k to match her salary at Barratt Homes. Banks said that they were not prepared to up the offer, so Ms Righetti settled on the £60k. Everything was going smoothly and the HR manager from Banks said her employment contract would be sent out after the weekend.
However - and this is where it gets interesting - Andy Liddell of Banks contacted Mr Dodson of Barratts to ask for information about Ms Righetti and why she left Barrett Homes. Mr Dodson, who is a Director of Barrett Homes, was Ms Righetti’s line manager and was also named as a respondent in her original discrimination claim against Barrett Homes, which was settled.
Mr Dodson was aware of the terms of the agreement and should have provided a reference in the terms agreed. He didn’t. What was said during the call will never be known, but as a consequence, the offer of employment with Banks was withdrawn.
Banks’ reasoning was that they had obtained two ‘soft references’ and they had reflected badly on Ms Righetti and her behaviour. Whether they call it a ‘soft reference’ or anything else, an enquiry as to the suitability for a candidate to a position is a reference in a general sense.
Banks set out their reasons in an email:
‘Further to our conversation yesterday, I can confirm that Banks Group rescind the verbal offer of employment to Natalie Righetti. The Hiring Manager/Head of Function felt increasingly uncomfortable over the time taken for Natalie to consider our offer. The offer was made very clear at interview so they felt disappointed that the candidate asked for a second and more improved offer. This ultimately lead them to have doubts over her commitment to the Company”.
Ms Reghetti did not accept their reasoning, and quite rightly so, particularly after she was told they were preparing her employment contract.
She made a claim to the Employment Tribunal for victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The sole issue for determination by the Tribunal was whether the Ms Reghetti was victimised following the settlement of an Employment Tribunal claim against Barrett Homes.
She was successful. The full facts of the case can be found here. The tribunal said:
“We had no hesitation in concluding, based on the facts found, that the reason for giving the claimant a negative reference was because she had previously made and settled a claim against the respondent under the Equality Act.”
They should have stuck to the agreed wording for a reference in the settlement agreement, but must now face the consequences of ignoring the agreement. Those consequences are that BDW Trading Limited must pay Ms Reghetti £16,265.10 in compensation. An expensive conversation on Mr Dodson’s part!
Former Liverpool council director Nick Kavanagh loses unfair dismissal case against local authority
Nick Kavanagh was the director of regeneration at the city council but was dramatically arrested at the Cunard Building by Merseyside Police as part of the force's Operation Aloft in December 2019. He was subsequently suspended from his chief officer job and was eventually dismissed in March 2021 following a council disciplinary hearing. Liverpool Echo
Swansea Uni: Dismissals linked to £200m wellness village 'fair'
Two academics who failed to declare their financial interests in a £200m development were fairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has ruled. Swansea University acted fairly when it sacked Prof Marc Clement and Steven Poole in 2019 for gross misconduct. The case was centred around the proposed Life Science and Wellness Village in Llanelli. Both had failed to declare personal equity stakes in the project.
Civilian employees of US Air Force who worked at UK bases fail to appeal dismissal of Employment Tribunal claims
A judge in the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that two civilian employees of the United States Air Force working on bases in the UK were unable to raise claims in the Employment Tribunal due to the doctrine of state immunity. Scottish Legal News
Long Covid: What condition being recognised as a disability means for employees suffering long-term symptoms
Last week, a caretaker became one of the first people to win an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal after suffering with long Covid. Scotland resident, Terrance Burke, was sacked in August 2021 after having to take extensive time off work due to the long term side effects of the coronavirus. He took his case to an employment tribunal, arguing he was unfairly dismissed and long Covid should be classed as a disability. inews