Arbeitszeugnis: Your Right to a Job Reference Under Swiss Law

A Swiss job reference, the Arbeitszeugnis, is one of the few employment documents a departing worker actually carries into the next interview. Under Swiss law, the right to receive one is set out in Art. 330a of the Code of Obligations, the OR, and it applies to every employee no matter how long they worked for the employer or why the employment ended.

This page works through what Art. 330a OR actually requires, where the well known truthfulness and benevolence standard for these documents really comes from, and why some references read as positive on the surface while signaling something else entirely. It also covers what a correction claim can and cannot achieve for a reader unhappy with the reference they received.

It is part of our wider Swiss employment law coverage, itself part of the broader guide to Swiss law.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Swiss law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

Art. 330a OR: the right to a reference

Art. 330a Abs. 1 OR lets an employee ask their employer at any time for a document covering the nature and duration of the employment, as well as their performance and conduct. This is the qualified reference, and nothing in the statute limits the request to the moment the job ends.

Abs. 2 works the other way round from how many readers expect. It says the reference is limited to nature and duration only if the employee specifically asks for that narrower version. The full reference is the default, and the short one is the exception the employee has to actively choose.

Qualified versus simple: which one you actually get

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed this reading directly in BGE 129 III 177. An employer may issue the shorter, simple reference only on the employee’s explicit request. Absent that request, the employer owes the full, qualified version.

The same ruling makes clear that a qualified reference has to address both performance and conduct together, not just one of the two. A document that describes only how well someone worked, while staying silent on conduct, or the reverse, does not satisfy Art. 330a Abs. 1 OR.

Take an employee who worked as a project coordinator for four years and leaves without asking for anything narrower. The employer owes a reference stating the job title and dates of employment, an assessment of the work actually performed, and a description of conduct toward colleagues and clients. Silence on conduct, even an entirely positive silence, falls short of what Abs. 1 requires.

The truthfulness and benevolence standard is case law, not statute

Search Art. 330a OR for the words truthful or benevolent and you will not find them. The statute’s own language stops at nature and duration, performance and conduct. Everything a reader has heard about a reference needing to be wahr, meaning truthful, and wohlwollend, meaning benevolent or favorably worded, comes from the Bundesgericht, not from the legislature.

The clearest statement of the standard is BGE 136 III 510. The court held that a qualified reference should promote the employee’s future career and therefore be worded favorably, while at the same time giving future employers a genuinely faithful picture of the person’s activity, performance and conduct, which means it also has to be truthful and complete.

That is a real tension, not just a form of words. A reference that is only flattering fails the truthfulness half. A reference that is only accurate, with no attention to how it lands, fails the benevolence half.

BGE 136 III 510 is actually narrower than the famous phrase suggests, and its facts are worth knowing. It concerned when an employee’s illness has to be mentioned at all. The court said illness belongs in a reference only if it affected the person’s suitability for the role and gave objective grounds to end the employment, with genuine uncertainty at the time about when they would recover. A past illness that has healed and did not affect the overall assessment must not be mentioned.

The Zeugniscode problem: reading between the lines

The tension between truthful and favorable wording is exactly what produces the phenomenon Swiss job seekers call the Zeugniscode. An employer cannot simply write that an employee performed poorly, because that would not be worded favorably. An employer also cannot simply praise someone whose actual record does not support it, because that would not be truthful.

What has developed instead, as a matter of conventional practice rather than anything written into Art. 330a OR or fixed by the Bundesgericht, is a graded vocabulary. The same sentence structure, worded slightly more or less enthusiastically, is widely understood among Swiss employers and HR professionals to carry different real assessments, even though every version reads as polite on its face.

This is genuinely useful to know and genuinely hard to act on alone. A single flat phrase in an otherwise warm reference, a notably short conduct section, or praise limited only to punctuality or attendance can all be signals rather than the full picture. None of that grading is fixed by statute or by any single court ruling, so treat it as an informed reading, not a guaranteed decoder.

Getting a reference corrected

An employee who believes their reference is inaccurate or unfair is not without options. BGE 129 III 177 confirms the remedy directly. A dissatisfied employee can bring what Swiss lawyers call a Berichtigungsklage, a correction lawsuit, against the employer.

In practice, the realistic first step is simpler and faster than going to court. Most disputes start with a direct, specific request to the employer, pointing to the exact sentence or omission at issue and proposing a factually accurate alternative. Employers frequently agree to reasonable changes rather than face a claim.

If the employer refuses, the employee can bring a correction claim before the competent court. The employee carries the burden of showing the current wording is inaccurate or does not meet the truthful and benevolent standard, which is harder to prove for a vague complaint than for a specific factual error.

What a correction claim can and cannot achieve

A successful claim can result in a court ordering specific, corrected language, or ordering a disputed passage removed. It can fix a factual error, an omission the standard actually requires, or wording that crosses from candid into unfairly harsh.

It cannot turn an accurate but average reference into a glowing one. Courts applying the truthful and benevolent standard will not order superlatives an employee’s genuine record does not support, and none of the case law above promises a particular outcome to anyone who brings a claim.

For a related situation, where the dispute arises because the employee believes the termination itself was abusive rather than just the wording of the document, see our companion page on abusive dismissal under Swiss law.