Was it Actually a Contract??

This story of Pritam and Jagruti brings up a very different aspect of Employment Relations as it talks about workplace romance. In this story the GM (HR) of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd appeals to two of the employees to sign a Love Contract. But there are certain things about this story that raise an eyebrow. I would like to share them here:

1) The creators of the concept of Love Contract (Garry Mathiason and Jeff Tanenbaum) say that such contracts should be completely voluntary and should primarily be used to avoid cases of sexual harassment. But the GM (HR) in this story not only coerces the duo to sign the contract but also demands Jagruti’s resignation in case Pritam refuses to sign the contract. Such enforcing of a contract violates the mutuality which is at the core of any contract agreement.

2) The part of this story which I found the hardest to swallow is the fact that the GM (HR) asks Pritam to sign the contract immediately and read it later on at his own luxury. Asking an employee to sign a contract without reading it is against the very definition of a contract. Contract is an exchange of promises, not an enforcement of actions. In this story, however, Pritam did not succumb to the demands of his superior and had the courage to read the document. There is a leaning for all of us in this story that contracts should be well read and understood before we agree to it. They should also be negotiated if the contract leans too much in the favor of the employer.

3) The third thing which I do not completely agree with is the relation, whatsoever, between nonperformance at work and having a romantic relation with your colleague. Sometimes, having a partner at work can be a source of support and inspiration. It also fosters loyalty towards the organization. We cannot stereotype the relation between nonperformance and workplace love affairs. Hence, such a contract should be tailor made and used only in appropriate cases.