Employment reference formulations (Arbeitszeugnis-Formulierungen) follow their own logic, which at first glance appears harmless but in reality assigns clear grades. The entitlement to a reference derives from § 109 of the Trade, Commerce and Industry Regulation Act (Gewerbeordnung, GewO), which also sets out the basic rules: the reference must be truthful and at the same time expressed in a benevolent manner.
When employees receive their reference, they are often confronted with a text full of friendly sentences behind which hidden criticism may be concealed. This article explains which formulations correspond to which grade, when a reference may be legally challenged, and what steps employees can take if the assessment does not reflect their actual performance.
The Statutory Entitlement to a Reference under § 109 GewO
Every employee is entitled to a written reference upon termination of the employment relationship (Arbeitsverhältnis). § 109 para. 1 GewO distinguishes between the basic reference (einfaches Zeugnis), which merely certifies the nature and duration of the work, and the qualified reference (qualifiziertes Zeugnis), which additionally addresses performance and conduct during the employment relationship. The qualified reference must be expressly requested; in practice, however, it is the standard form.
Under § 109 para. 2 GewO, the reference must be formulated in a clear and comprehensible manner. It may not contain any characteristics or formulations whose purpose is to convey a meaning about the employee other than that expressed in the literal wording. This is precisely where the so-called reference language (Zeugnissprache) comes into play: formulations that sound superficially positive but are read in professional circles as coded criticism violate this principle.
The Duty of Truthfulness and the Requirement of Benevolence in Conflict
The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) requires two things of an employer simultaneously: the reference must correspond to the truth, yet must not unnecessarily impede the employee's professional advancement. These two duties exist in a certain tension with one another, since a genuinely poor performance cannot be described truthfully without the formulation being more guarded in tone.
In practice, a reference language has therefore developed that mitigates negative facts without concealing them entirely. An employee who, for example, frequently had conflicts with colleagues will rarely receive the sentence 'He had conflicts with colleagues', but rather a formulation such as 'His conduct towards colleagues was at all times appropriate', which, on closer reading, signals reserve.
The Grading Scale Behind the Satisfaction Formulas
Satisfaction formulations (Zufriedenheitsformulierungen) are the best-known element of reference language. They follow a fixed grading scale that is equally familiar to HR professionals and employment courts.
- 'At all times to our complete and fullest satisfaction' corresponds to the grade very good (1). - 'To our fullest satisfaction' corresponds to the grade good (2). - 'At all times to our full satisfaction' or 'to our full satisfaction' corresponds to satisfactory (3). - 'To our satisfaction' corresponds to adequate (4). - 'On the whole to our satisfaction' corresponds to poor (5). - 'He made every effort to carry out the tasks assigned to him' corresponds to unsatisfactory (6).
The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) clarified in its decision of 18 November 2014 (Case No. 9 AZR 584/13) that the formulation 'to our full satisfaction' is regarded as the grade satisfactory and thus marks the midpoint of the grading scale. If an employee requests a better assessment, they must set out the facts substantiating above-average performance and, in the event of a dispute, prove them. Conversely, if the employer requests a lower grade, the burden of presentation and proof (Darlegungs- und Beweislast) rests with the employer.
Typical Coded Phrases and Their True Meaning
In addition to the satisfaction scale, there are numerous individual formulations that are regarded as coded language in HR practice. Those who are familiar with them can assess a reference realistically.
- 'He showed understanding for the concerns of the business' suggests that genuine commitment was lacking. - 'She was popular with colleagues and superiors' without any mention of professional performance may indicate insufficient technical competence. - 'He possessed specialist knowledge, which he applied within the limits of his capabilities' signals limited capacity for performance. - If the closing formula expressing thanks and regret is absent, for example, the sentence 'We regret his departure and wish him all the best for the future', this is frequently interpreted as a lack of goodwill, even though there is no independent legal entitlement to such a formula.
When Is a Reference Defective and What Can You Do?
A reference is defective if it contains untrue facts, omits important areas of responsibility, uses unclear or ambiguous formulations, or violates the requirement of benevolence without such violations being justified by the employee's actual performance. In this case, there is an entitlement to correction (Berichtigungsanspruch), which derives from the same entitlement to a reference under § 109 GewO.
The entitlement to correction is not subject to its own statutory time limit, but it is subject to the standard limitation period (Verjährung) under § 195 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB) of three years. Of greater practical relevance, however, are contractual or collective agreement exclusion periods (Ausschlussfristen), which frequently amount to three to six months and may cause the entitlement to lapse at an earlier stage. Furthermore, an entitlement may become forfeited (verwirken) if it is not asserted for an extended period of time and the employer was entitled to assume that no correction would be sought.
Practical Tips for Dealing with Your Own Reference
Employees should read the reference sentence by sentence, paying particular attention to the order in which tasks are mentioned, the formulation of the performance assessment, and the closing formula. It is often omissions that reveal more than explicit criticism.
Conclusion
Employment references (Arbeitszeugnisse) follow their own language, which at first glance appears benevolent but contains clear assessments. Those who are familiar with the common formulations and their grade equivalents can assess their reference realistically and, if in doubt, request a correction in good time.