Short-Term Employment: Should Companies Issue Experience Letters for Less Than 6 Months?

In case an employee worked for, let's say, 2-3 months with the company only and expects the experience and relieving letter to be released from the company's end, should the company release the letters despite the employee not having served the company for at least 6 months? What should be done in this case? Kindly let me know, as it seems to occur on a casual basis.

Thanks
Regards

Procedure for Issuing an Experience Certificate

What is the procedure for issuing an experience certificate? Is there a minimum service period required for the same?

It depends on the policy of the company. Normally, an experience letter is given only if a substantial contribution is made by the employee, which requires a minimum period of service. It also depends on the employee and why he/she is leaving. If the employee has been a sincere and hardworking person and has made an impression in the company, he deserves an experience letter even if he/she has worked only for a short period. It also depends on why the person wants to leave—whether for a better prospect (which the company would also like him/her to have), going abroad, or due to some family problems, etc. All these factors are to be taken into account for deciding whether to provide a letter or not.

Issuing a Certificate of Employment in the Philippines

In the Philippines, it is a normal practice to issue a certificate of employment for a resigned employee, even if the employment record is only for a short duration, in order to avoid labor/legal issues.

A simple employment certificate should contain basic information such as the employee's name, position held, department to which he/she belongs, and the period of employment. Including the salary would be optional on the part of the requesting employee.

If the prospective employer of the resigned employee conducts an employment background reference check pertaining to his/her performance, then this can be answered by his/her immediate supervisor. The performance appraisal rating/record is normally not recommended to be indicated on the certificate, especially for a short period of employment.

Thank you.

Probation and Confirmation in Organizations

Normally, organizations keep an employee on probation for a period of 3 to 6 months. Upon successful completion of the probation period (which is based on the performance appraisal of the probationer), an employee gets confirmed. Some companies extend the probation period if performance is not up to the mark, while others may even bid 'Goodbye' to the probationer.

The issuance of an 'Experience Letter' is a clause applicable only to confirmed employees, but the period served may include the probation period. Certain companies even specify in their 'Appointment Letter' the minimum period an employee must serve in the company and the notice period (ranging from 30 to 90 days) for resigning to become eligible for the 'Experience Letter'.

Importance of Employment Contracts

Remember, employment is a contract between the employer and the employee, and the 'Terms & conditions of this contract', accepted and signed by both parties, determine the eligibility criteria for all types of HR issues related to separation from the company. Therefore, the most crucial aspect in the 'Life cycle management' of an employee is the 'Offer/Appointment Letter'. All HR policies of the organization have a direct bearing on this single document, which also holds legal sanctity.

You may want to align your HR practices with the process described above and handle each situation objectively.

It's a common error of judgment, especially in the Indian HR scenario, to link the two issues of an experience letter and the duration of service. In this connection, I appreciate and endorse the practice in the Philippines, presented by our member Mai_nucum, as quoted below. Not only this, I also foresee this requirement in the future due to security and other reasons—a company may have to give an experience certificate even if a person has worked only for a few days in a week.

Employment Contracts and Natural Justice

@ B K Bhatial and Bpughazhendi, an employment contract/agreement is a primary document—it's true; but remember—it's not sacrosanct. There cannot be any unlawful or illegal terms and conditions in not just an employment contract, but in any contract. Similarly, a practice that is against the principle of natural justice or is clearly exploitative will render that contract null and void.

Warm regards.

Dear Its Mee,

I appreciate the topic that you have started and the discussions brought up by other CiteHR members. Systems are in place for everything to ensure the well-being of both employees and employers.

Experience Certificate Considerations

An experience certificate is a simple document that covers details of your tenure. Although it has been a practice for ages, I go by what the company prefers in relation to the rules and trends set. If I have an employee employed, they are still provided with an experience letter indicating their work duration. This applies to both probationary and confirmed employees. Bonds and other documents are considered redundant.

Regards

I suggest that you kindly check the law governing the service conditions of your employees. In our case in Mumbai, we are covered under the Bombay Shops & Establishment Act. As per the Bombay rules under The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which is a central act, it is mandatory to issue experience certificates without any limit of service.

Regards,
DINESH

Understanding Service Certificates vs. Experience Certificates

We often mistake a service certificate or experience certificate with a testimonial on the accomplishment of service, character, and conduct of an employee during their tenure. Consequently, we proceed to stipulate conditions on our own, such as the existence of a clause in the contract or the length of service being adequate enough to merit such a service (experience) certificate.

A service certificate should be a simple document acknowledging the fact by the employer that a particular individual was in the service of the company from a specific date and left the service on a particular date. Therefore, a service certificate can be given without reference to the length of tenure, as a sound administrative practice.

I have not come across any statutory provision on this issue except in standing orders, as Mr. Dinesh Bandarkar rightly pointed out. Even this has a limitation since the standing orders are applicable only to workmen. What if someone is not a workman? Then should it be incorporated into the contract of service? What if the contract of service is silent on this? Should the employee be denied a service certificate? This is the issue. Members' suggestions invited.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & labour law advisor
Mumbai

From all the discussions above, two issues emerge:

1. Certificate issuing is governed by the terms of the contract of employment.

2. Whether there is a contractual obligation or not, it would be good practice to issue an experience certificate to all employees who leave the company, irrespective of their length of service. The second point of view appears to be the more preferred one.

What Should the Certificate Contain?

This leads to the question: what should this certificate contain? If it is bare statistics about the Name, Designation, Date of joining, Date of leaving, Salary last drawn, and reason for leaving, there are no difficulties. Perhaps there is an implied "right" for the employee to have such a certificate from the employer. But beyond this, if any mention has to be made about their performance in the organization, it is debatable. Can a leaving employee force the employer to issue him a certificate stating that his performance was 'outstanding' or 'very good'? Such encomiums are at the discretion of the employer only. No one can compel him to do so.

I hope you realize that while the question has important academic significance, in reality, it will not really matter whether he gets his experience certificate. Most employers (potential employers) will not appreciate a certificate of working for 2 months (unless it was part of training that some MBA courses have). Any such certificate will only reduce his appeal to employers, as they rarely want people who leave jobs in a short time.

Issuing Experience Certificates: A Matter of Policy

An experience certificate simply states that an individual worked with the company for a certain duration. There is no reason a company should have an issue issuing such a statement of fact, even if the employee was on the rolls for just a single day. It should not be subjective, such as issuing the certificate only if the employee is deemed sincere. Would employees be governed by a well-thought-out policy or by the subjective judgment of HR regarding their sincerity?

I believe any company that respects its employees would not have any issue providing an experience certificate that states the duration of employment.

I appreciate the fact that if an employee works only for a single day, the company should not have any problem issuing the experience certificate. However, when an employee provides false or unreasonable reasons to be relieved from the company's rolls, despite being bound to the condition of a legal bond, is issuing the certificate of experience the right step in this situation?

Thanks

Well, just the fact that the employee doesn't want to work anymore with the company should be enough to relieve him—what could be a more reasonable reason? Employment has to be voluntary—forcing someone to stick with a company doesn't work in the long run.

Legal Bond and Experience Certificate

Does the legal bond say that if the employee leaves before the bond term, the company would not issue an Experience Certificate? Also, if the bond is really legally enforceable, courts will provide the legal remedy to the company. Withholding the Experience Certificate or salary, etc., are actions that would technically be illegal and are definitely unethical. In my humble opinion, no honorable company would resort to it.

Regards