Following an employee's departure, the employment reference frequently becomes a point of contention. While the departing employee typically relies on this reference for subsequent job applications, former employers often subtly embed veiled criticisms. This is commonly achieved through a codified language within the reference, where the true meaning of the phrasing is discernible only to an experienced interpreter.
Consequently, an employment reference should fundamentally be scrutinized for the following aspects:
Formal Presentation of the Reference
The mere formal presentation of a reference can reveal significant insights into an employer's regard or disregard for an employee. Obvious typographical errors within an employment reference, for instance, signal a lack of esteem. Consequently, legal precedent has established specific criteria for the external characteristics of an employment reference.
An employment reference must first present a professional appearance. It must therefore be created on the standard company letterhead, which clearly shows the employer's exact company name, address, and legal form. If the employer does not use specific letterhead, the reference may also be drafted on a plain white sheet, from which the same information must be evident.
The reference must also not contain defects such as grease stains or erasures; spelling errors must be avoided, and exclamation marks, question marks, as well as underlining or bold print are prohibited.
Furthermore, the reference must be personally signed by the employer or an authorized representative (e.g., the Head of Human Resources).
Content of the Reference
A distinction is made between a simple and a qualified reference:
The simple reference merely states the duration and nature of the employment relationship, thus serving solely as proof of employment.
The qualified reference, on the other hand, includes a description of the employee's willingness to perform and their conduct. Its purpose is to provide potential new employers with comprehensive and truthful information about the employee's work ethic and performance. Jurisprudence has established the principle that the employer is obligated to provide a benevolent assessment – the departing employee should not be hindered in their future career path.
Due to this jurisprudence, specific formulations and practices have evolved in practice that allow for reading 'between the lines'.
For instance, highlighting (trivial) obvious facts implies that the employer otherwise has nothing positive to report about their employee. The phrase that the employee was 'always punctual', for example, represents such an obvious fact.
Another stylistic device for hidden criticism involves restrictive formulations. These are often not discernible upon first reading and are therefore particularly subtle. This is the case, for example, when an employee has merely 'participated' in a training measure. In plain terms, this means that while the employee was physically present, they learned nothing. If an employee is granted 'overall' good work performance, this indicates that they also had periods of poor performance.
Equally difficult to detect is the omission of expected evaluations, known as eloquent silence. For instance, if an employee regularly handles cash, one would expect a statement in the employment reference indicating that the employee was fundamentally honest. For a cashier, for example, honesty is a characteristic of fundamental importance.
Finally, the sequence of the standard text passages in a reference plays a significant role. This is particularly true when less important criteria for the employment relationship are addressed before the actually crucial points. For example, if a long-distance truck driver is first attested to having a good relationship with colleagues, and only subsequently is their work performance evaluated, it suggests that their work performance was not particularly outstanding. Generally, the scope of duties and work performance should be mentioned before other subordinate criteria.
The Overall Reference Grade
Typically, every employment reference contains standard formulations and keywords from which a grade comparable to a school report for the respective sub-area can be inferred:
Work Performance:
He performed his duties
· always to our utmost satisfaction = excellent
· always to our full satisfaction = good
· (always) to our (full) satisfaction = satisfactory
· to our satisfaction = sufficient
· overall to our satisfaction = deficient
· endeavored to meet the requirements = unsatisfactory
Expertise:
Mr. Mustermann,
· possesses comprehensive and extensive expertise, which he successfully applied in practice = excellent
· possesses good (extensive) specialized knowledge, which he successfully applied in practice = good
· possesses solid specialized knowledge = satisfactory
· possesses the necessary specialized knowledge = sufficient
· endeavored to further develop his specialized knowledge = inadequate
· possesses developable (basic) knowledge = insufficient
Reliability:
Mr. Mustermann was
· at all times extremely reliable and very precise = very good
· at all times reliable and very precise = good
· consistently reliable = satisfactory
· reliable = sufficient
· generally reliable = inadequate
· consistently strived for reliability = insufficient
Work Conduct:
His conduct towards superiors and colleagues was
· consistently impeccable (exemplary) = very good
· impeccable (exemplary) = good
· always good = satisfactory
· consistently satisfactory = sufficient
· overall satisfactory = inadequate
· strived for a positive atmosphere = insufficient
Hidden Indications
Furthermore, employment certificates regularly contain formulations that only reveal their true meaning when one understands the secret language of employment certificates. The following formulations are common, for example:
"He has expert knowledge and a healthy self-confidence"
means: Overplays lack of expertise with arrogance and arrogance.
"He is a demanding and critical employee"
means: He is an egocentric employee who insists on detailed compliance with his rights.
"He carried out the work assigned to him with diligence and interest"
means: He made unsuccessful efforts.
"He was a good role model because of his punctuality" or "He did his activities within his capabilities"
means: His performance was completely unsatisfactory.
"He had the opportunity to participate in further training measures"
means: but did not take advantage of them.
"He knew how to delegate all tasks with success"
means: Shirked the work.
"He has made an effort to suggest improvements"
means: A know-it-all who cannot put his expertise into practice.
"He had understanding for the employees under his command at all times."
means: He showed weak leadership behavior and had no assertiveness.
"In the circle of colleagues he was considered a tolerant employee"
means: There were quarrels and problems with superiors.
"He was committed to the interests of his colleagues"
means: He is a member of the works council.
"For the concerns of the workforce, he demonstrated extensive empathy"
means: sought sexual contacts in the company.
"He has contributed to the improvement of the working atmosphere with his sociable manner"
means: He has an alcohol problem.
Should you encounter any of the aforementioned phrases in your employment reference, it is advisable to have your reference reviewed by a qualified attorney. Attorney Wagner is available to assist you in this matter.
GoldbergUllrich Law Firm 2017
Master of Laws (Industrial Property Rights)
Certified Data Protection Officer (TÜV NORD)
Email: m.wagner@goldberg.de
