Non-fraternization Policies

Leslie

I could have swore we've been over this before but did a search and came up with nothing.

My board asked me to write such a policy, which I did (thanks for the help Margaret!). It went to legal and my 3/4 page policy now has a three page response with 16 pages of attachments (mostly taken off the internet - shoot pay me what they make...I could have done that!)

Legal's first point? Such relationships aren't illegal! Gee, I didn't know that. #-o

In any event, I THINK the end result is Legal isn't too crazy about us enacting such a policy and prefer we go with a "'consensual relationship agreement', otherwise known as a 'love contract.'"

Do any of you utilize an official procedure or the above agreement/contract? Do they work? Are they enforceable? Or is just more mind-bending CYA paperwork that is a perennial pain in the a**?

Parabeagle

mind-bending CYA paperwork that is a perennial pain in the a** gets my vote, Leslie.

However, we do have a relatively effective policy (works for us, anyway) that does not involve killing an old-growth forest to put into practice. Basically it's covered in our Conflicts of Interest policy and merely states that supervisor/subordinate involvement, personal or romantic involvement with competitors, suppliers or coworkers may impair an employee's ability to exercise good judgment on behalf of the company and may create an actual or potential conflict of interest. In the event the company becomes aware of such consequences resulting from inappropriate relationships of this nature, the employee(s) may be subject to disciplinary action.

marc

Isn't it a crazy world where we spend so much time and energy trying to define when these types of relationships are OK while burning several billion megawatts of energy trying to manage sexual harassment issues?

Mind boggling some days.

San Francisco

Leslie, my company does have a non-fraternization policy that is limited to persons in a direct reporting relationship. Because all management at store level is responsible for the entire operations of the store, no member of management is to become involved in personal relationships with the employees he/she supervises. This helps avoid potential harassment allegations, conflicts of interest and complaints of favoritism. Like Parabeagle, we are concerned not only with romantic involvement but close personal friendships that may make it difficult for a manager to supervise that employee and/or can create allegations of favoritism by the other employees. I might add that despite this policy, not all managers who have become romantically involved are single - hence a "love contract" would be like putting our stamp of approval on it. Bottom line, such a policy may not be necessary in your company. In ours, it's a big problem at store level because the employees become very close - way to close at times.

Elizabeth

ray a

No formal policy, but my boss likes to say not all policies must be in writing. Like others, our policy is to avoid fraternization between direct reports. This includes spouses and close relatives. Only had one sticky situation where a director started dating women in his department, but there were 2 levels between them and he was warned to be careful to avoid the appearance of special treatment. He wasn't careful and he is gone.

Leslie

That's my point. Do we really need a policy or signed statements from those in a relationship situation to show we are doing everything we can to avoid quid pro quo? That's the point of these things isn't it? To show the relationship was consensual to begin with? And any problem arising from a break up is "sour grapes" so to speak?

San Francisco, I can see your problem. But if I have reports of favoritism, I wouldn't NEED a policy to look into it. What we all look for in our management staff is those who treat their subordinates as fairly and equitably as possible. When complaints come to the contrary - whether it involves a relationship or not - it needs to be checked out.

Am I making any sense at all - or does it seem I am just trying to convince myself how to talk the board out of wanting this policy?

ray a

Leslie, I think you make perfect sense. No matter how much you document, can you be sure you will cover every possible scenario? Some things just come down to common sense or doing the right thing, to use two cliches. The real issue is not two people having a relationship, the real issue is fair and equitable treatment or the the perception of fairness. As you said, anytime there is a claim of unfairness, regardless of the cause, it should be checked out and corrected as necessary.

Parabeagle

Leslie, another thing to remember is that if "common sense" and "do the right thing" were a lawyer's mantra, he/she'd make absolutely NO money. Sure your lawyer's recommendations are probably good advice - but perhaps not necessary. One thing I've learned over the years is that just because it comes in on a lawyer's letterhead does NOT necessarily mean it's in the best interests of your company - yet it's always in the best interests of the lawyer's billable hours.

Leslie

The lawyers I utilize are employed by the Tribe I work for. They don't do billable hours. I am always a little suspicious of what they have to say because they aren't employment lawyers. They are Tribal lawyers, hired to protect the sovereignty of the Nation. The 3/4 page policy in question was sitting on their table for almost 41 days - goodness sakes, the earth was flooded in less amount of time! Then it comes back to me full of internet documentation from Princeton, Duke, Vanderbilt, and the Magnum Corporation. Pray tell, just how do those relate to casino, farm, convenience store, cowboy adventures, sand, gravel and concrete operations?

Parabeagle

I don't mean to make light of your lawyers' qualifications, but you have a valid point. If they're not employment law lawyers, I suspect their advice is not the best under the circumstances. I know that I wouldn't have a real estate lawyer draft my will - nor would I have my brain operated on by a podiatrist. Seems to me the only saving grace is that you didn't have to pay for their "work."

San Francisco

Leslie, I agree. We don't have the policy just so we can investigate favoritism, the policy is simply stating that fraternization can result in the perception of favoritism, so just avoid fraternizing. Certainly, we would look into any allegation with or without a policy.

Elizabeth

Frenchie

>No formal policy, but my boss likes to say not all policies must be in
>writing. Like others, our policy is to avoid fraternization between
>direct reports. This includes spouses and close relatives. Only had
>one sticky situation where a director started dating women in his
>department, but there were 2 levels between them and he was warned to
>be careful to avoid the appearance of special treatment. He wasn't
>careful and he is gone.


What would you do if it were a member of HR (no, it's not me!)having an affair with an associate from a different department?

Parabeagle

Tough one. As far as I'm concerned, the moment it becomes a subject of gossip, it's become inappropriate and you need to deal with it.

ray a

Good question, Frenchie. Fortunately, I am happily married and would never allow myself to get into that situation. The key is would the situation create special treatment or the appearance of special treatment. HR people are human, too and subject to the same desires and frailties as other people. And the workplace is a good place to meet other people and we do spend much of our day with them. So, it is natural for close friendships to develop. I would say it depends on the circumstances. For example, if the personnel specialist working for me developed a relationship with someone at work and she had no special influence over that ee's job status, I would have not problem. In my position as director, I have influence, in one form or another, over most all ee's below my level. It would be wrong for me. How big is the organization? In a small company, HR touches every dept and every ee. Best to avoid entanglements. In a much larger organization, it may be easier for it to happen with no ramifications.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 11-07-03 AT 02:24AM (CST)[/font][p]Couldn't sleep. Knew James would slash my post so I got up and did it myself. x:-)

Leslie

I'm afraid you will be banished, but how succinctly put.

Unlike San Francisco's situation where there's a plethora of sticky (pun?!?!?!) situations, I've only had one where there was a reported problem and that was never proven. Now the board wants to jump before it's shot.

I think I'm going to try to convince them not to make an official policy but instead, if they choose, a statement.

deniseE

maybe you could handle this in a more round-about way...give the board what they want AND have a policy that you can reasonably enforce.

I think it was mentioned earlier in the post...If you have an ethics policy, include language in that to prohibit intimate employee relationships. It could read that in the best business interest of the company... all employees regardless of level are to refrain from engaging in personal relationships with either other employees or clients that could cause management to perceive that the employee's ability to perfom essential job functions has been/could be compromised.

Then it could follow the standard scale of discipline for ethical violations rather than specifically stating that dating is "illegal"

System

Interesting. I am currently living with the IT manager of our company. When we first started dating three years ago I was the HR asst. The only one who knew about the relationship was my manager. She said that there was nothing that she could do about it because there were already two couples working in the Co. I am now the manager of the HR dept and considered Senior management so both he and I are privy to the same confidential info about the company. Of course he is NOT privy to confidential info on ee's.
It is completely out in the open now as we are in a long term, committed relationship. It has not affected the company in any way. It is a shame that people can't behave in a professiol manner when it comes to this kind of thing to the point that we have to create policy.

Leslie

Above when I said it's only become a problem once doesn't mean that there's only one instance of "fraternization." I had a female individual contributor in one department become involved with a supervisor in another department. No biggie. A few months later they're engaged - due to circumstances it'll be years before the big day.

The supervisor's department manager goes on leave and is unable to return. Guess who's the new department manager?!?!? That's right - the former individual contributor. So far, no problems. Where's the crossed-finger emoticon when you need one?