With the increasingly diffused demarcation in peoples’ private and professional lives these days, sharing hours of common space and time together often leads to workplace romances. This is not just limited to traditional workplaces. This phenomenon is observed widely across various professions (doctors, actors etc.) because the shared understanding of the pressure and demands of an industry leads to an emotionally involving relationship.
· So how do the employer and HR in particular deal with this increasingly common phenomenon across countries?
· What could be the point of views for and against having such contracts?
· In a traditional hierarchical work environment, how does this romance affect (if all it does) the work dynamics in the organisation and what went wrong with the way Pritam and Jagruti’s case was handled?
I will try to build my analysis on the above framework while critically analysing the case given.
HR practices the world over have witnessed a phenomenon called ‘Love Contract’ also known as a "relationship contract" or a "workplace-relationship agreement". But this contract doesn’t have a wide spread as of now. Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Workplace Romance Survey found that most companies surveyed do not even have a formal, written, romance policy. Of the 617 members who responded to the SHRM survey, 72 percent do not have a written policy; 14 percent say they have an unwritten, but well understood, norm in their workplace. Thirteen percent do have a policy.
So what actually is a ‘Love Contract’?
"It lays the ground rules of an office romance”, said Stephen Tedesco, an employment law attorney and partner at Littler Mendelson in San Francisco, which created the first contracts. Still, love contracts are not easy to find. Even though the television show ‘Ally McBeal’ featured a story about a young couple who signed one, most people don't know what they are.
But these contracts are coming of age in formal organizations and there are some basic elements that these contracts comprise of. Attorney Marilyn Sneirson suggests several key elements that should be addressed in love contracts:
- Any dispute arising from the relationship or contract will be resolved through arbitration.
- Employees may want to consult an attorney before signing the contract.
- Dating employees are expected to follow certain guidelines, such as refraining from displays of affection at work or work- related events.
- Either employee can end the relationship without fear of work-related retaliation.
- Dating employees agree to waive their rights to pursue a claim of sexual harassment for any event prior to the signing of the contract.
In creative industries like the film industry the disrupted schedules and losses to a film due to romances of the lead pair going sour are outside the purview of a legal framework. Here the concept of ‘Love Contracts’ would seem ridiculous but if we think objectively, there should be some mechanism to safeguard the interest of producers and provide a protection mechanism against such losses.
Policies in formal organisational setups across some countries:
· According to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, while Australia does not yet have binding love contracts, there are measures to prevent possible harassment cases. Some firms move employees to separate departments to avoid possible tension from a relationship or they prohibit employees in the same department from dating. Another approach advocated in Australia is to require employees to report a relationship to a nominated personnel officer as soon as it commences.
· Such a requirement is increasingly common in employment contracts in Britain. Companies such as the BBC now require employees to inform a nominated officer of any sexual relationships with colleagues. Failure to do so can lead to the termination of employment.
· Whereas, in Taiwan 70% of workers have said no to the love contract. The rationale is that this contract was meaningless and relationships should not be bound by a document.
· The East Bay city of Albany has a ‘nepotism ordinance’. Many businesses sought to avoid nepotism by
Those who advocate such contracts may be have the following opinion:
· Preparing and signing a relationship contact is a new way of regulating the relationship and insulating both parties from unpleasant fallout like gossip, sexual harassment cases and in extreme cases even violence in the workplace if a relationship goes sour.
· It all sounds a bit mechanical and unromantic but then some would say the same about a prenuptial contract.
· The important point about a contract is that it specifies duties, obligations, rights, and privileges, and this can provide extra security, relieve stress, and ensure the relationship is on a firm footing.
· Life is complex. Unless you are a committed risk taker, planning carefully and thoughtfully is a great way of reducing insecurity, unpredictability, stress, tension, and traumatic calamities.
· An employer has the absolute right, they would say, to supplement its sexual harassment policy with a carefully crafted and precisely tailored non-fraternization mandate.
On the other hand those employers who are against such contacts may be of the following point of view:
· It may seem too personally invasive, or awkward to administer.
· Some may even benefit from the added zeal and improved attendance that comes from love-smitten employees who are suddenly excited to come to work each day. (As pointed out by Abhilash)
· It seems there’s little need for company scrutiny, since comparatively few workplace relationships create problems. A Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey of 617 enterprises revealed just 4 percent of the people involved in a failed office romance issued a formal complaint.
To strike a balance between these two extreme opinions, I would suggest some alternatives rather than a formal written love contract directed only to couples:
· A love contract policy should be incorporated into the employee handbook and be widely disseminated throughout the workplace through a notice announcing the policy, and perhaps even a meeting explaining the policy and why the company is adopting it.
· Discussing the policy in anti-harassment training programs and ensuring that the relationship policy only be a supplement to the Sexual Harassment Policy.
With regard to the case, I would like to highlight a few points which also attempt to clarify some of the thoughts posed by Sushma at the end of her post:
· It is indicative that the company HR plans to promote Pritam only under the condition that he signs the contract. The way Pritam is being forced to sign the contract without reading it is objectionable and the company seems to be doing it by putting Pritam in a pressurised position. In fact, signing a love contract is voluntary and lawyers advice employees that they cannot be penalized if they refuse to sign. The only reason the GM(HR) seems to be doing it is that they fear he may refuse to sign it if he reads it and they might actually have to terminate one of them. But they actually may want to retain both of them and at the same time free themselves of all liabilities in case the relationship fails.
· Link between promotion and the contract: The signing of this contract is being linked to his promotion. This promotion also brings with it a transfer of location to the Detroit office. Many companies feel that if two employees get married enter a relationship while both are employed in the same department, it shall be necessary for one of the employees to transfer to a different department/location.
· Also another pressure on Pritam to sign is that the HR is threatening to fire Jagruti if he fails to sign the contract. But the nepotism ordinance says that if there are no appropriate job openings after four months, only then termination of one of said employees is mandatory.
So all aspects with which this love contract is being imposed is not appropriate in the way is being dealt with. Also the company suffers from the risk of losing both the employees, who work amicably together but may quit out of fear.
Also with respect to the contract Pritam was given, the contract was one sided and did not state the company’s responsibilities while imposing the contract. Under the Confidential Medical Information Act, the company is prohibited from releasing to either of them any information regarding the other's medical condition. This can further be extended to all company held confidential employee information.
No comments:
Post a Comment