OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
REFEREE REPORTS
FACTS & MYTHS
Terry Lisson
Director Promotion Appeals & Grievance Reviews
22 November 2011
NT PS Merit Selection
• Referee reports
should be the
most useful,
reliable and
valuable tool in
merit selection
Code of Conduct – 17.6
“When
required to give references
for, or make reports on, other
Public Sector employees or on
persons outside the Public Sector,
employees have a duty to provide
frank and accurate comment.”
Who are Referees?
• Referees are not just someone nominated
by an applicant to say good things about
them
• To be effective, referees must be the
persons best-placed to give current,
relevant feedback on an applicant’s merit
– e.g. present supervisors and managers,
clients, perhaps in some instances also
teammates, or others in the workplace
Speaking to Referees
• By simply knowing what information it
is appropriate to ask for, panels can
add value to the assessment process.
• Knowing about past performance can
alert you to both strengths and
weaknesses that may not be evident
or accurate based on an application
and/or interview.
Speaking to Referees
If you want information about
both general and specific job
duties, responsibilities,
competencies and overall
performance, then ask!
Things you can and should ask
• What were the applicant’s responsibilities and
functions? At what level, how many staff did they
manage? What is your level and what is your role
in relation to the applicant? Is there another
person well-placed to provide useful information?
• Have there been poor performance issues and
what was the outcome?
• Can you verify and comment on *** (claims made
in the job application)***?
• What are the applicant’s strengths and weakness
in relation to the requirements of this job?
• Are there any other concerns – e.g. ability to
work in a team, disciplinary issues, ?
When to do the referee check?
• At any time that it would assist the panel in
making their assessment of the applicants’
merit, or in deciding what areas they might
need to explore further in relation to a
particular applicant.
• Contacting referees as part of shortlisting
applicants for further consideration is
highly recommended
Contacting Referees First
• By contacting referees at the start of a selection
process the panel may be able to avoid doing
unnecessary interviews of persons whose referee
reports do not support their claims
• Information obtained by referees in advance can then
be used to inform the discussion with individual
applicants (rather than a set of identical questions)
• Most importantly, it becomes very easy to afford
natural justice if the referees have already been
contacted.
Natural Justice
• Natural Justice is fundamental to all
aspects of a selection process, including
referee checks.
• Applicants are entitled to be made aware
of seriously adverse information about
them and to have a reasonable right of
response, and to have any information
given in response be considered
impartially before a decision is made.
Myth - You cannot contact nonnominated referees
• Sometimes non-nominated referees are the source
with the most current and relevant information
about the person’s ability to perform the job.
• If non-nominated referees are contacted, the rules
of natural justice create a requirement to give the
applicant the chance to hear and respond to any
seriously damaging comment.
• A nominated referee should also always be
contacted if a non-nominated referee has been
• Best practice is to advise applicants you will be
contacting referees and who they will be
Myth – You only need to contact referees if
the applicant has performed well enough at
interview that they have a good chance at
getting the job.
• This practice guarantees that a good
candidate for the job, but who has poor ability
to sell themself doesn’t get the benefit of their
referees to help counter the bad impression
they may have made at interview.
• It is after a poor result at interview that
referee reports become even more important.
Myth – You can only ask referees
to address the specific selection
criteria and cannot ask questions
that go beyond this
• “Referee checking can be one of the most
valuable parts of the assessment process.
However its effectiveness can be limited
by panel perceptions of what they can,
and importantly, cannot, ask of referees.”
(Qld Government OPSC Recruitment and Selection Processes
October 2007)
Performance Based Assessment
• The best source for assessment of
applicants should be their known
and demonstrated work
performance.
• Any employee should be able to
rely on the fact that their day-today performance on the job will
count towards their achieving
promotion
The Importance of Referees
• If the main source for assessing the merit
of applicants is to be their demonstrated
work performance, then referee reports
become very important in the selection
process
• Probably the best way to assess work
performance is through the knowledge of
supervisors, managers, colleagues and
even subordinates – not through the
claims of the applicant!
Message from the Commissioner
• If an employee has been promoted to a
position where they are supervising
and managing other employees, then it
becomes part of their job to give fair,
complete, honest and accurate
information about work performance,
as part of any NTPS selection process
involving their staff.
Future Direction - PDPs
• As the NTPS puts in place Performance
Development Plans, those regular written
reports tied closely to the Capability and
Leadership Framework may become a source –
perhaps the main one – to inform selection
processes.
• This does not mean the PDPs will be used
‘against’ people – it simply means that the best
available information about employees’
demonstrated work history is being used to
assess merit.
Liability of Referees
• Myth- If I give a referee
report I am leaving myself
open to being sued – so it is
best to just say nothing, to
be less than frank, or to give
only a statement of service.
Liability of Referees
• The fear of lawsuits is not
substantiated by relevant case law
• The reality is that there have been
very few, if any, cases where an
employer was successfully sued
for providing an honest reference
given in good faith.
• In fact the opposite is true.
3 commonly known cases:
1) An employee exhibited bizarre
behaviour including writing the
word ‘blood’ next to a list of
employees, and was dismissed for
bringing a gun to work. He was
given a “glowing” reference and
went on to shoot 5 employees at
his next job (Jerner v Allstate–1995 Florida)
3 commonly known cases:
2) A teacher who had numerous
allegations of sexual misconduct
was “unconditionally recommended
for any administrative post”, without
any mention of the concerns. He
then went on to molest a student at
his next job. (Randi W v Muroc School
District 1997)
3 commonly known cases:
3) An employer discovered his
employee had lied about the reason
for leaving his job when really he was
going to work for a competitor. The
employer then gave a very damaging
(and untrue) reference. As a result the
new employer withdrew the offer.
Damages awarded of nearly $300,000
($250,000 punitive) (Gibson v Overnight Transport 2003)
Liability of Referees
• These cases in no way suggest that we
should give out less information or that we
should be afraid to give a frank and factual
reference. They simply reinforce that
honesty is the best policy. If the employers
in the above cases had used dispassionate
common sense, those cases would never
have gone to trial and employers would be
more confident in what can be shared when
someone calls for a reference.
Don’t be afraid to give honest
referee reports!
• Selection of applicants will be
better, more consistent with
the merit principle, and a lot
easier, if we get, and give,
frank, factual and relevant
employee references.
Merit selection is an Investigation
Selection panels should remember
that the process is an investigation
and is all about hiring the person
with the best capacity to perform
in the position (Not the best
capacity to perform in the
selection process!)
Giving Good Feedback
• Lack of understanding as to why the
successful applicant was found to be of
superior merit is one of the main reasons for
appeals and grievances. (This is particularly
so in cases where the unsuccessful
applicant meets all the selection criteria.)
• The best Individual Selection report
should be one that answers all the
questions the unsuccessful applicant
might have
Myth - You cannot make comparisons
between the individual and the successful
applicant in the Individual Selection Report
“Rating against specific criteria may be
useful to those with identifiable deficiencies.
But for applicants who meet or exceed the
criteria, only a comparison against even
better applicants will help them
understand why they were not selected.”
(Qld Government OPSC Recruitment and Selection Processes
October 2007)
Feedback for Unsuccessful
Applicants
Generally the best feedback is
a comprehensive explanation
as to why the selection panel
believes the successful
applicant is superior in their
capacity to do the job.
Good Practice Guidelines to
Merit Selection
• Available on OCPE website
• http://www.ocpe.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/45162/Good_
Practice_Guidelines_to_Selection_Processes.pdf
Questions?
• Please feel free to
contact:
Terry Lisson
8999 4128
Promotion Appeals
&
Grievance Review