A woman who was given a negative job reference has won the right to see that reference, following a ruling by Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly.
In her ruling, Ms O'Reilly said it would be a positive development if the Freedom of Information Act caused people writing references "to use more balanced and reasoned language and to outline both positive and negative attributes of the candidate rather than to emphasise some attributes at the expense of others".
The Freedom of Information legislation applies to documents held by public bodies such as health boards and Government departments. In this case, the woman had been placed on a panel for a job with the former Southern Health Board (SHB).
One of her former employers provided a negative reference in response to an inquiry from the health board. The woman said the health board then told her that it was not proceeding with her job application.
The health board said this was because it had received an unsatisfactory reference.
The woman asked to see the reference but the health board refused on a number of grounds.Among the reasons for the refusal were the fact that the reference contained information that had been provided in confidence. The inquiry form supplied by the board to anyone from whom it seeks a reference is marked "private and confidential".
However, the form also states that all personnel records, including references, are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and may be available to the candidate at their request.
The SHB said its practice was not to release such references if the referee did not consent to the release.
In her ruling, Ms O'Reilly found that it was "inherently unfair that a candidate who has been successful in being placed on a panel following a selection process should lose out on possible employment on the basis of a reference which is secret and which the candidate cannot attempt to rebut".
