The wording of a German employment reference (Arbeitszeugnis) follows its own logic, which appears harmless at first glance but in fact awards clear grades. The entitlement to a reference arises from § 109 of the Trade Regulation Act (Gewerbeordnung, GewO), which also sets out the basic rules: the reference must be truthful and at the same time worded benevolently.
Employees who receive their reference are often faced with a text full of friendly sentences that may conceal hidden criticism. This article explains which formulations correspond to which grade, when a reference can be legally challenged and which steps employees can take if the assessment does not reflect their actual performance.
The statutory right to a reference under § 109 GewO
Every employee is entitled to a written reference (Zeugnis) when the employment relationship ends; with the employee's consent, it can also be issued in electronic form since 2025. § 109 para. 1 GewO distinguishes between the simple reference (einfaches Zeugnis), which only certifies the type and duration of the work, and the qualified reference (qualifiziertes Zeugnis), which additionally addresses performance and conduct in the employment relationship. The qualified reference must be expressly requested, but in practice it is the norm.
Under § 109 para. 2 GewO, the reference must be worded clearly and comprehensibly. It must not contain any features or formulations intended to make a statement about the employee other than the one expressed literally. This is exactly where the so-called reference language (Zeugnissprache) comes in: formulations that sound positive on the surface but are read by professionals as encoded criticism violate this principle.
The duty of truthfulness and the requirement of benevolence in conflict
The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) requires two things of the employer at the same time: the reference must be truthful (Wahrheitspflicht), but must not unnecessarily hinder the employee's professional advancement (Wohlwollensgebot). These two duties are in a certain tension, because genuinely weak performance cannot be described truthfully without the wording turning out more reserved.
In practice, a reference language has therefore become established that softens negative facts without concealing them. An employee who frequently had conflicts with colleagues, for example, will rarely receive the sentence „Er hatte Konflikte mit Kollegen“ (he had conflicts with colleagues), but rather the formulation „Sein Verhalten gegenüber Kollegen war stets angemessen“ (his conduct towards colleagues was always appropriate), which on close reading signals reservation.
The grading scale behind the satisfaction formulas
Satisfaction formulas (Zufriedenheitsformeln) are the best-known part of reference language. They follow a grading scale commonly used in practice, which the labour courts also rely on.
- „Stets zu unserer vollsten Zufriedenheit“ (always to our fullest satisfaction) corresponds to the grade very good (1). - „Zur vollsten Zufriedenheit“ (to our fullest satisfaction) or „stets zu unserer vollen Zufriedenheit“ (always to our full satisfaction) corresponds to the grade good (2). - „Zu unserer vollen Zufriedenheit“ (to our full satisfaction) or „stets zu unserer Zufriedenheit“ (always to our satisfaction) corresponds to satisfactory (3). - „Zu unserer Zufriedenheit“ (to our satisfaction) corresponds to sufficient (4). - „Im Großen und Ganzen zu unserer Zufriedenheit“ (on the whole to our satisfaction) corresponds to deficient (5). - „Er hat sich bemüht, die ihm übertragenen Aufgaben zu erledigen“ (he endeavoured to complete the tasks assigned to him) corresponds to insufficient (6).
In its decision of 18 November 2014 (Az. 9 AZR 584/13), the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) clarified that the formulation „zur vollen Zufriedenheit“ (to our full satisfaction) counts as the grade satisfactory and thus marks the mid-point of the grading scale. If an employee requests a better assessment, he or she must set out and, in the event of a dispute, prove the facts demonstrating above-average performance. Conversely, if the employer wishes to assess the employee as worse than satisfactory, the employer must set out and prove the facts demonstrating below-average performance.
When is a reference incorrect and what can you do?
A reference is incorrect if it contains untrue facts, omits important areas of responsibility, uses unclear or ambiguous formulations or violates the requirement of benevolence (Wohlwollensgebot) without this being justified by the actual performance. In this case there is a right to correction (Berichtigungsanspruch), which arises from the same right to a reference under § 109 GewO.
The right to correction is not subject to its own statutory time limit, but it is subject to the standard limitation period (regelmäßige Verjährung) of three years under § 195 BGB. Of greater practical relevance, however, are contractual or collective agreement cut-off periods (Ausschlussfristen), which are often three to six months and can cause the claim to lapse earlier. In addition, a claim may be forfeited (Verwirkung) if it is not asserted over a longer period and the employer was entitled to assume that no correction would be requested any more.
Practical tips for dealing with your own reference
Employees should read the reference sentence by sentence, paying particular attention to the order of the tasks listed, the wording of the performance assessment and the closing formula. Omissions often reveal more than explicit criticism.
Conclusion
Employment references (Arbeitszeugnisse) follow their own language, which appears benevolent at first glance but contains clear assessments. Those who know the common formulations and their grade equivalents can assess their reference realistically and, if in doubt, request a correction in good time.