''We are having a lot of lawyers on our pay roll. Form some more contracts..''
Probably this is what the managers are thinking these days.
There is a quote by Samuel Goldwyn - “A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on."
If we look at the story of Pritam Singh and Jagruti, the question that comes to my mind is 'what was the need of this love contract? We can see that the GM(HR) immediately asked Jagruti to put down her papers when Pritam refused to sign the contract. The GM(HR) could have asked them to put down their papers at any later stage. He could have spoken to them about taking care of their conduct. It could have been a sort of verbal agreement. So why put all that on paper?
I sometimes find it difficult to decide if contracts are ways to scare the employees or it is just a precaution by the company. A love contract policy establishes workplace guidelines for dating or romantically involved coworkers. The purpose of the policy is to limit the liability of an organization in the event that the romantic relationship of the dating couple ends. There have been cases in the past when a person was accused of sexual harassment by a coworker after their relationship had ended. The love contract just declares that the relationship is by mutual consent. This helps the company to wash their hands off in the future in case of any lawsuits being filed against them. I agree that this can be a good precaution measure for the company. But is it justified in interfering in the private matters of the employees? An issue of love being put under legal contract does not sound very convincing.
The company can always instruct the employees that any personal affairs between the employees are not a part of the company’s business, unless and until it affects the workplace. This I believe is already specified to the employees during joining. I don't agree to the views that a love contract will solve the issues of relationship between employees. In case an employee wants to file a complaint, the employees can always claim that they were made to sign the love contract forcefully by threatening their employment. Hence we need to raise the question that “Is love contract a solution?”
Regards,
Varun Agarwal (u109148)
3 comments:
As Varun rightly pointed out...we have to analyse whether we need a love contract at all or not...Firstly, I believe that the company could have spoken to them regarding their professional conduct however, it would not be binding on the employees until and unless it has been put down on the paper. Only in the case of a Promissory estoppel, a non-contractual promise may be made enforceable. In all other cases contracts help to legally bind the parties involved.
A very relevant question has been raised regarding whether or not the company is interfering with the personal life of the employees by enforcing the love contract. In my opinion, the company has got nothing to do with what its employees do beyond their professional life. However, all the acts performed during the professional life and those acts which indirectly affect or influence the functioning of the organization are essentially companies business. Therefore, clauses involving the required behaviour from the people involved cannot be deemed as interference in someone’s personal life. Moreover, a company trying to free itself of charges of sexual harassment in case the relationship turns sour at a later stage of time is also justified.
The situation in which the employee claims that they were made to sign the contract forcefully can be a problem. Thus, the employer can involve a neutral third party to prove that the employee wasn’t forced into the contract.
Love contracts also help to address the problem of nepotism. Sushma correctly stated that the sentiments of the other employees can get hurt if they believe that they are getting sidelined due to favouritism. Also the company expects the individuals to devote their time towards the professional tasks rather than personal matter.
Thus, even though the GM HR of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd cannot totally eliminate the possibility of litigation after implementing the love contract but the contract can surely streamline the behaviour of the people who are romantically involved and thus, can be beneficial for the company in the several ways that have been discussed.
First of all I must apologize for missing a very important point in my analysis. I forgot to comment on the possibility of discrimination between employees. It is totally understandable that if two people are in a relationship, then there is a problem of favoritism that comes into the picture. But, we must understand that avoiding nepotism had several other ways which are much simple. As Rohit has pointed out through his experience in his company, the two people can very simply be put in different groups with no reporting relation. With this, I will again stress on my point that we DONOT need a love contract.
Regarding the necessity to keep a weapon to safeguard itself, the company can any ways be blamed for forcible signing of contract. Also, the company has the power to remove any employee on the basis of negative effect on the work even without a contract. How exactly is the company gaining a substantial advantage from “love contract” is questionable.
I would like to point out another angle here. Like in the case given by Sir, Pritam was in the HR department, and Jagruti was in the systems department. Now, there would usually not be any reporting relationship between both the employees. However, since Pritam is heading HR, which is responsible for Compensation and other benefits, the other employees might feel that favoritism is involved, though they might not be indulging in any such behavior
Post a Comment