No liabilities

The concept of love contract comes into picture so that the firms can wash their hands off any controversy regarding any relationship between two of their employees turning sour later on. In this case, the HR manager, Pritam Singh, had developed a relationship with a Senior Software Engineer, whose placement in the company he had felicitated.

A company should not have any problem with two persons entering into a mutually agreed relationship. However the problem arises as there is a difference in the level of seniority between the two and also Pritam being the HR manager is in a direct position to influence the progress of Jagruti. (remember "Life in a Metro!")

All the company wants to ensure that if sometimes later, both Pritam and Jagruti decide to part ways, and then Jagruti should not be claiming that Pritam had cheated her and misused his position and sue the company. (remember "Aitraaz").

As for the part about couples being more stable in their personal life and hence more productive in their professional life (remember the hiring criteria that the senior management gives to Tom Cruise in the movie "The Firm"), there could be some element of truth in the fact. However, in such a case a "Love Contract" is not necessary as the very fact that a person is married amounts to the declaration that the couple is in a relationship which is mutual. Under such a scenario, even if the couple do decide to part ways later on, then firm cannot be held liable.

However, what is bothersome is the manner in which Pritam was asked to sign the contract. Why he was not allowed to read the contract before signing? Did the General Manager really think that such a seasoned manager will sign a document without reading it? Why was Jagruti, the relatively inexperienced of the two, called in before, whereas people normally consult the more experienced and with one who has been with the firm for a long period of time (in this case, Pritam) in such serious matter? What was the situation under which Jagruti signed the document? Was she also not allowed to read it?

These are some of the questions that need answering for the case to be analysed further.

Promote Love not Contracts

While going through the posts of my friends a lot has been discussed about whether love contracts are necessary in an organization and what purpose do they solve? Rather than concentrating on the same fact I would like to present a different perspective by saying that today more and more employees are meeting their better parts in the same organization they work. Although romance during office hours or public display of affection can cause problems for human resources departments, marriages and relationships that transform into commitments for lifetime can add stability and even productivity to an employee’s life. So, can employers actively promote the institution of marriage within the organization?

Everyone considers a good married life as an incentive for increased employee efficiency and performance, hence every organization should encourage employee relationships rather than having love contracts to restrict any sort of romance between co-workers. But, is it right or wrong for an organization to promote marriage? Should an employer endorse marriage or is it not the right of an employer to meddle in the personal life of its employees?

The main purpose of an employer is to introduce a love contract has been to draw certain guidelines to keep employees from public display of affection, either of the employees can end their relationship anytime at their own wish and the company wouldn’t have any liability in case of any charge of sexual harassment. I don't believe a love contract is a solution for the litigation issue as employees can easily claim in court that they were forced to sign the contact by the employer. Hence an organization must try and promote relationships within it so that the performance of the employees increases rather than making the atmosphere ugly.

Workplace Romance: Is “Love Contract” the solution?

Love can blossom in most extraordinary circumstances, and here we are talking about situations where people spend major part of their time with each other, sharing experiences, emotions, grievances; in short everyday affairs. So it is not unnatural that a special bond can develop, even at the workplace. Though neither it is unethical nor immoral, it brings along with it many complications, both for the employer and the employees.

• There can be situations which can be perceived as signs of favoritism by co-workers, especially if the professional relationship is that of an immediate supervisor.
• If in future the relationship turns sour, the subordinate can claim the relationship was not consensual and can file a case of sexual harassment.
• Also, the working environment can be turned hostile by any of the involved parties, in case they break up.
• The supervisor can be fire the subordinate without any cause.
• Even if they are not in direct reporting environment, still one might have some say in the performance evaluation of the other.

With the growing number of unfortunate incidents resulting from romantic liaisons happening in today’s workplace, most specifically in IT industries, it is only fair for an organization like Intermediaries Technologies Ltd. to take all the precautionary measures to minimize their liabilities.

A love contract not only states that both the employees are in a romantic relationship which is consensual, but also puts on paper certain guidelines for expected behavior from the involved parties, such as refraining from display of affection at work.

The first and foremost point that needs to be taken care of by an organization while imposing this contract on employees is that they should sign it with their full consent, and should be given enough time to go through all the clauses of the agreement before signing. Unlike what happened in Intermediaries, where both Jagruti and Pritam were asked to sign the document by the GM(HR), who gave enough hint to Pritam that his promotion depended on this, and that if he refuses to sign it, one of them has to resign, opportunity should be given to the employees to sign this contract at will. They also should be given a chance to hire an attorney, if required.

Also, such a contract/policy should be widely disseminated in the organization, and should be incorporated in the employee handbook etc. Some sessions can be organized educating the employees about the policy and why is it required. It should not be just enforced.

At times, it may create uncomfortable and awkward situation between the employees. Displaying certain affection or sharing a special bond at workplace does not necessarily mean point to a romantic relationship. But in most cases we assume it to be so, and this can sometimes be embarrassing for the concerned people. In this case, when Pritam is entering the office of GM (HR), Jagruti is altogether being indifferent to him, and tries to avoid him. He also takes a chair not immediate to Jagruti. This shows that both of them are not comfortable in making their relationship public. But the organization, by the virtue of its power over their employment, forces them to accept the relationship by signing the document. This can be purely unethical on the part of the organization, as it is using its power as an alibi to interfere in the personal lives of its employees.

Instead of such a forceful agreement, the policy can explain that the employees have an obligation to tell the HR department about the relationship. Also, instead of threatening them of being fired from their jobs, alternatives can be made available, like change of jobs within the organization, accepting positions in which neither of them is in direct reporting relationship. It should be clearly stated that their personal relationship should in no way affect the work or the firm. In case of any disputes, it should be solved through arbitration.

In this case, if Pritam would have been promoted and transferred to an onsite location, there would have been a remote possibility of him being professionally involved with Jagruti, so that would have solved the matter automatically.

With all this, I want to conclude that employees should be given space to breath and should not be buried under the weights of numerous irrational contracts, which neither have a clear and definite purpose, nor are they implemented in their true sense.

Workplace: A second home

Well, second home could have many implications. It is not a new phenomenon that people have “relationships” at their places of work. The development these days is that people are much more public about their relationships and feelings.

It is completely justified that employees are entitled to privacy in their personal lives. But what happens is that: work problems get taken home and home problems get taken to work. Then the organisation has to pitch in to safeguard its interests. The organisation is completely right in enforcing a contract that preserves it’s sanctity. What happens within the premises of an organisation is completely its business. But where do you draw the line between a casual liking and a “relationship”. As Sushma has mentioned, there may be couples who are unwilling to disclose their relationship.

What is of concern is - Does such a contract actually safeguard an organisation's interest? If the purpose is to save the organisation's name in case of false allegations of harassment by an employee - the contract stands useless. In an institution like marriage, where both are lawfully wedded the wife has a right to charge her husband of harassment. The law accepts that a woman in a relationship can be abused. So even if the contract suggests that both the employees are in a mutually consenting relationship the individual can at any time charge for harassment, if she/he thinks so. In that case, I think it is a very narrow interpretation of the law.

Such a contract only mars the atmosphere of work. It fosters a cloistered attitude in the workplace and suggests the absence of good and strong HR practices.

The objective of an organisation and a love contract

To decide whether a love contract is right or wrong, good or bad, should or should not be enforced, requires that we first lay down the basic purpose of the organisation and the HR department. The basic purpose of an organisation and its HR department is to ensure that:
1. Employees work for the maximum benefit of the organisation.
2. Employees are as objective as possible in their judgement and actions.
The first thing to understand is that the employees can never be completely objective in their decisions. This is because a firm deals with human beings and not non-living things. Human beings have emotions and are thus bound to be subjective.
Now, let’s us look at the options before the company and their outcome in relation to the above mentioned objectives. The possible options are:

Case 1: Employees are in love and the love contract is signed: In this case, such a love contract would help in maintaining the decorum of the organisation. But in some cases, it might lead to problems. For example, in a situation where say Jagruti’s actions are in favour of the organisation according to Pritam but other employees are against Jagruti and Pritam needs to take a stand then there are chances he might make a decision against Jagruti (and thus organisation as a whole) in order save his or her or both jobs. But since 100% objectivity is not possible, we can put aside these special cases.
Case 2: Employees are not in love and the love contract is signed: This can be the situation under certain circumstances like this (the case of Pritam and Jagruti) where if the contract is not signed one of the employees will have to leave. In this case, after signing the contract, the likely response of the employees would be they would become very formal and would avoid any sort of friendship. They might even stop talking to each other. In extreme cases, they can even go to the extent of avoiding any professional talk which might be necessary for the benefit of the organisation. But in general they might become little uncomfortable in working with each other. There can be circumstances where if performance of Jagruti falls for some other reasons and Pritam needs to talk to her and find the probable causes for performance appraisal etc..., then such discomfort can prove detrimental to the organisation. Also, even if these two people manage to be professionally comfortable and continue to work for the benefit of the organisation, the signing of contract can have several impacts on other employees and the culture of the organisation as such. After knowing about such contracts, employees already committed or conscious of their repute, might reduce their interactions with other employees of opposite sex because of the possibility of getting associated with the other person even when there is no such thing. This will hamper team work and hence will be harmful for the growth of the organisation.
Case 3: Employees are in love and the contract is not signed: When an employee is forced to leave the organisation (as in this case Jagruti would be), it would breed hostility in the employee who stays and he might start working against the company’s benefit.
Case 4: Employees are not in love and the contract is not signed: If in such case, one of the employees is forced to leave (as here), then the employee who stays in the company may feel guilty. This is because he (because Jagruti was asked to leave) might think that because of his friendship the other person had to leave. There is a possibility that the employee might cut himself off from other female employees for avoiding any such issue from being raised again. This not only would hamper team work but also employee’s efficiency as well. This is because man is a social being by nature and if he is refrained from such interactions, this would affect his emotional stability and would eventually lead to a fall in his efficiency. Also in extreme case, his (in particular an HR manager’s) remoteness may be misunderstood by other female employees as arrogance and attitude and they may consequentially view all his actions and policies as against their well being and may oppose it.
In all the cases, such contracts are likely to have an adverse effect on other employees as they would feel that organisations treat them as machines and not as humans. They are only supposed to work and not make friends. Such behaviour of employees would work against the company.
Under most of the circumstances, these contracts seem to work against the achievement of the stated objectives of the company and the HR department. Hence, other ways should be taken to achieve these objectives. The possible alternatives could be:
1. Training of employees for keeping their personal and professional life separately,
2. The GM(HR) can talk to the employees concerned and ask them to maintain the decorum of the organisation and to work objectively. The employees are likely to take it positively primarily because of the power of his position.
3. Changing their accountability or responsibilities so as to avoid the professional interaction between the 2 employees as much as possible.

Love Contract: Policies can fail to cover everything..

Some of the larger companies in Indian context like Infosys Technologies ltd have strict Anti-sexual harassment policies laid out clearly in their policy manuals. New employees joining the organization are communicated in their orientation training on what is termed and can be considered as a case of sexual harassment irrespective of gender. Harassment cases are heard by a separate committee formed of senior executives. Employee has all the right to move to next level of authority if they are not satisfied with the verdict and also file a legal case in case they feel they aren’t being heard properly.

However, what the policy misses out is on the consensual relationship between employees at work place. In scenarios where people are working in small teams for long hours requiring lots of coordination, mutual attraction turning into romantic liaisons between employees of opposite sex are quite common at workplace. Particularly a scenario involving boss and a sub-ordinate, “love contract” in a suitable form might be a potent tool for the organization to check favoritism at work place.

However, this should be a step in the positive direction in the sense to check favoritism and exploitation at work place. The organization shouldn’t look at limiting its liability in case of sexual harassment as signing the contract also means that employees are foregoing some of their rights to file sexual harassment cases in relations they are voluntarily involved. This is particularly true for smaller companies where proper HR practices are not in place and employees can be exploited in the name of “Love Contract” and grievance hearing is also not provided. Hence, “Love contracts” should be implemented in very specific cases.

But I guess “Love Contract” would be difficult to implement in the Indian context within all cultural, social and societal limitations. It would lead to allegations of privacy invasions. As, being discussed earlier by sir, coercion might be the only way to implement such contracts. Also, people would not like to accept allegations of link-up and the company officials themselves need to be very sure lest they face defamation charges.

Although funny it may sound, many organizations are in fact encouraging the “dating” employees to marry with lots of incentives like same workplace, same team and getting on site opportunities together thrown in. This would legalize the relation and organization may be able to benefit from synergies of such marriages rather than being adversely affected in the first place.

Ashish Sehgal

Mind & Body, Heart & Soul into Work not Work-mates

Workplace now a these days is an extension of people's lives as they spend upto one-third to half or more of their day there. Organizations pay their employees for finishing jobs assigned to them whether through a proactive or reactive approach. The highly competitive atmosphere that professionals work in today sometimes acts as a pressure cooker for some, in such a scenario it is but natural or rather easy to expect support, thereafter sympathy and ultimately nearness from one's colleagues. People tend to come near to gain solace in case of failure, or celebrate in case of success.

Now the above mentioned cases may result in positive outcomes and the individual may evolve out much stronger than before and thus, more prepared next time and more suited to company's needs.Organizations use a pedal and brake model to control one's behaviour and performance, pedal such as perks, pat on the back and brake such as fines, notices etc. In fact, to enhance the integration and facilitate communication in the firm the management may actually support this type of interaction. Now as long as this is limited to a healthy and mutually beneficial level of interaction it is fine, problem arises when the boundary is crossed and unsaid and unwritten rules are broken. Though we hear people putting in 16 hours of work at a stretch, I would like to question how much of it was useful or productive work, how much of it was dedicated to coffee breaks, how much to chit-chat over the water cooler, how much over the latest price rise in cost of potatoes and which actress had a break-up with which actor(my favorite heard it quite many times in one of the bank branches where I have my account).

This is where Love Contract comes to the rescue as my friends Varun Agarwal and Sushma Rao have already pointed out, it either prohibits people from getting into relationship or draws a line till where it can go, they have already given examples as how performance can be affected in case one has a break-up, heart break etc.. Now history is replete with examples of office romances which ultimately turned disastrous effect for the firm not because of performance issues but rather due to the responsibility held by the person, the first example coming to my mind is that of erstwhile US President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, where the latter alleged 9 sexual encounters with the former, now here we have one of the biggest firms on Earth the government of the most powerful nation on Earth, it further led to impeachment of the President but we all can imagine the embarrassment and humiliation that the people of the country would have faced. A firm after all from generating profits for its shareholders also has to maintain a moral image in the society, the Lewinskygate affair will now be a black mark in American history. I am sure, had he been asked to sign a restrictive Love contract Mr. Bill Clinton would have at least thought once before indulging in such scandalous behaviour. The other most recent such scandal was of Mr Tiger Woods indulging in extra marital affairs, which led to cancellation of his contract with several of his sponsors and had him apologise in public. Thus, a contract becomes all the more important to save those associated with the accused from public shame, which is all the more at stake if you are a public figure of a high stature.

Thus, we need this contract not only to regulate the work related performance, but also to uphold the image and reputation of the firm. In fact clauses do state that an employee can't indulge in activities which do harm to a firm's reputation.(e.g. American Express Case Exhibit 2) so Love contract can just be an extension to this clause.

Fear is after-all one of the most important and effective factors apart from encouragement to regulate one's behaviour and especially for masses.

I doubt if firms are really interested in their employees' personal lives (unless Pritam Singh and GM HR both liked the same lady Jagruti). They want to take care, but only if you keep giving them assured returns.

Thus, we can say that the importance, validity and relevance of such a contract increases as one grows up in the hierarchy. These may come across as one in a thousand cases, but I would like to point out that these gained attention only because the accused was a reputed person, there may be thousands such case where the an officer would have got away with a similar act, just because no rule was there to restrict him/her(Courtesy Hindi Movie Aitraaz). Especially in today's atmosphere where favouritism and explotitation can wreak havoc with employees' careers and leave them in a mess. Some deterrent in better than no deterrent, as they say "Prevention is better than cure", then why not issue a warning. Otherwise, Agar Miyan Biwi Raazi to Kya Karega Kaazi???? Ultimately, I am all for Love Contracts.