Reference Checks

Gerri

What is your practice on providing reference information to companies checking references on a previous employee of yours? Does anyone have a policy regarding this, and how do you handle disclosing "negative" information? Since the liability issues can be two-fold (the employee can sue for negative info being disclosed or the hiring company can sue for negative info not being disclosed - depending on what the new hire does), how do you handle this?

System

Gerri,

I did two issues of HR Hero Line, our free e-mail newsletter, on reference checks. The first issue suggested giving only name, rank, and serial number. That suggestion caused quite a stir, especially among some of the employment law attorneys in our network, so I followed up with another article focusing on the benefits of giving substantive references. Here are links to both newsletters:

Reference Reservations, Part I
[url]http://www.hrhero.com/hrheroline/042701.shtml[/url]

Reference Reservations, Part II
[url]http://www.hrhero.com/hrheroline/050401.shtml[/url]

We also have an HR Spotlight on "Job Reference Checks & Balances: The Dilemma for Employers" at [url]http://www.HRhero.com/spotlight.shtml#reference[/url] . It's free to Law Center members and $12 for everyone else.

I'm sure others will chime in with their opinion here on the forum, also!

Christy Reeder
Website Managing Editor
[url]www.HRhero.com[/url]

Gar

In my previous HR life I worked for a major hi tech, Fortune 100 company. I now work for a government entity. I mention this only because these two employers are so different yet both have exactly (almost word-for-word) the same policy on references. They will only divulge a former employee's dates of employment and job title. If the employee signs a waver they will divulge salary information. Moreover, the HR departments are the only organizations authorized to give out such information and supervisors are discouraged from giving out any references including the aforementioned. As a matter of fact, at my former place of employment, a supervisor divulged the fact that her former employee was fired. The former employee filed a title VII (discrimination) complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The supervisor was severely disciplined, and I do mean severely.

Down_the_Middle

We've just changed a long-standing policy of name, rank and serial number and now converted to sharing what's documented in the personnel file. Under the premise of "truth is an absolute defense" we're tired of sending poor performers down the road to become someone else's problem. All employment ref's are to be obtained from HR-only and I have a small number of people authroized to release this information. My state also has an immunity statute to protect employers from frivolous litigation, but I still think the truthful approach makes sense. If the pers file cannot speak to the question, then we respond that we don't have sufficient information to provide. I might change my mind after 6 mos of this new policy, but for now I think it's the right thing to do.

Gar

To Down-The-Middle. You folks have a lot of guts. What you're doing makes sense to me, personnally, because I don't like the idea of passing on poor performers either. But I wish you luck. Do me a favor and mark your calendar. If we're still here in 6 months, please let me know how your process turned out.

hrgrad2001

While it is our policy to provide dates of employment, title, and whether or not they are eligible for rehire, we have in our state (WI) as well as many other states laws that protect employers from litigation as long as the information given is documented in the employee's file. I would like to give more info to other employers about former employees as when I am conducting reference checks, I am thankful for any information that I can get.

franfields

Arkansas is another state that has passed a law to protect employers who give out information. However, before I will give out information, I still request a copy of the persons signature on a statement allowing the recruiter to obtain the information.

Gillian

I agree with Down the Middle. In my opinion we have allowed ourselves to buy into the idea that we operate HR in a risk free manner - no risk meaning giving no reference information. Other people take risks, so should we, but reasonable of course. Telling the truth is the way to go - truth, not opinion. There is a downside to not giving information - negligence for not providing info. that should be provided as a California Supreme Court decision made clear, at least for us in California.

There is another side to this - small employers don't know about the reference check dilemma and most people work for small employers. Here's a story from my consulting days. A client called me to check out whether or not she made the right decision. She told me that she wanted to hire an employee in her warehouse. She thought he was good so she called the HR department at his previous employer. The HR person gave the name, rank and serial number approach and stated that more information was contrary to company policy. She decided that since no information was given, that the former employer must be hiding something negative so she didn't hire him.

Our approach to this issue has more downsides than just sending poor performers down the road. We are doing a disservice to a lot of good employees as well, because of the assumptions that are made when the "no information" policy is in force.