Duties

FunHRBanker · June 2004

I was just told that my role as HR Manager is to "back up supervisors and management with legal support. HR is not the complaint department. COmplaints should be referred immediately to the supervisor or upward within the chain of command. HR is not within the chain of command on any of the departments of the organization." Doesn't that last sentence seem wrong? I was told that the supervisor and the next person on the chain will deal with all issues. Basically, nothing will be documented. I just want to see if I'm the only one that thinks this is off the wall. Thanks!!

MrCreosote · June 2004

I think that backing up "supervisors and managers with legal support" might include ensuring that they are trained to handle complaints and to document as necessary. But I do agree that complaints should be handled by immediate supervisors whenever possible. If it's a sexual harrassment complaint against the supervisor, or something like that, then the employee will need another channel, but that would be only for extreme cases.

marc · June 2004

We try a similar approach here - trying to work with all supervisors and above to be knowledgeable enough about HR type issues to know when to ask for help. We give training to all these levels and add more concentrated trainings as we go up the supervisory ladder. We want our front line people to be as knowledgeable as possible. After all, they are making decisions as events occur. We get better and more immediate results when this level of staff can make more informed judgements.

We supplement this chain of command preference with an open door policy. If EEs wish to take advantage of the open door policy they are free to do so. If anyone is approached outside the chain of command, they have been trained to assess the situation and re-direct the staff if the chain of command is still the appropriate route to take. Their are obviously some situations where the chain of command will in fact leave you exposed, such as a sexual harrassment charge between staff and supervisor.

Forunately, in our companies size (65 EEs), the more difficult issues that require HR involvement are rare, but even in the more pedestrian issues, such as FML situations, the line supervisors will call me for guidance to make sure they are following procedure. In reality, a person could draw a dotted line from every box on your chart to HR. I am OK with that because it includes our commitment to adequately train our staff to deal with the day-to-day HR issues that everyone faces.

FunHRBanker · June 2004

Thank you for bringing in those perspectives. I was just feeling like mgmt didn't want me involved. This makes more sense. I get involved in the training end so that supervisors and management are more capable of dealing with the issues. AH HA! Lightbulb! THANK YOU x:-8

LisaMN · June 2004

We act more as consultants in the complaint resolution process both for managers and employees. We do train our managers on HR issues but in addition we will individually coach employees or managers on non-confrontational methods of communication if they have an issue they need to resolve.

We make it clear that we are not there to solve the problem but to act as a resource for both sides in resolving the issue.

Don D · June 2004

Boy, wait till Pork sees this one!

I see your supervisor's point, but feel he/she overstated it in rather cut and dried fashion.

I've always had the freedom to suggest to employees that they first should take up work related issues with their immediate supervisor, but also have stressed that they should feel free to address those issues with Human Resources if they felt they were ignored or mishandled. And I also give them another avenue if they feel I have mishandled their issue. It's a fine line trying not to foster the culture that HR wants employees to view us as the 'tattle department' and bypass supervisors and come running to us for every piddling issue. Regarding sexual harassment complaints I maintain that it must be mandatory that those not go through supervisors and certainly never be investigated by supervisors who are not in Human Resources. If your culture is going to strictly adhere to the chain of command, it is imperative that you have an ongoing refresher training program for supervisors and get them on circulation of some of the publications you receive in the mail.

psrcello · June 2004

As usual, Don D, you've hit the nail on the head.

To you, FunHRBanker, I've had a similar comment made to me in a past life. My advice - consider the source. In my case, the impetus of the comment, from the president of the company, was that he didn't want HR to have anything to do with the employees because I was "too good" to them, so no wonder they "walked all over us!"

However, if the comment was really directed at holding the supervisors and line managers accountable for doing their jobs properly and HR being there to back them up with legal advice, that's a whole different story!

Dr_Steve · June 2004

Hi, Don ... just to be picky, I presume that by "sexual harassment complaints" you are referring to a complaint of illegal harassment on any protected basis ...

... just to be picky, you understand ...

;-)

Don D · June 2004

Can you kindly advise me of an 'UNprotected basis' for a sexual harassment complaint? There are no exclusions regarding 'protected basis' when it comes to sexual harassment. And all sexual harassment, by definition, is illegal. If it is welcomed, it is not harassing. And if it is not illegal, it is not sexual harassment. My point is that Human Resources must respond to charges/complaints of harassing behaviors in the workplace, not supervisory, line staff.

AJ SPHR · June 2004

I think Dr. Steve's comment was intended to expand your comment to include ALL forms of harassment, not just sexual harassment. He wasn't intending to say, I believe, that some forms of sexual harassment are legal.

But then, I don't know Dr. Steve and I very well could be wrong! So, what am I doing here anyway?!x:-/

Don D · June 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-11-04 AT 10:50AM (CST)[/font][br][br]The reason I mentioned sexual harassment is that sexual harassment was specifically mentioned in the prior post by Marc.

But just to be 'picky', sexual is the only type specifically referred to under law as harassment. The others are referred to as discrimination.

Nina I · June 2004

As so many Forumites do, I thoroughly agree with Don D. Our complaint policy requires the ee to take two steps before filing a complaint - 1) speak with immediate sprv. If not resolved 2) speak with the sprv's sprv. If still not resolved, they can file a grievance (complete with dates noting the above) and send it to me (compliance). I investigate at that point. The idea here is that disputes are best resolved between the people who have the problem - no sense in HR getting invovled (Don referenced tattling) when it's the employees who benefit the most if they work it out between them. We feel this respects and supports the supervisor's efforts, but allows the line employee to be heard if something is really amiss AND keeps HR in the loop when needed. With almost 700 employees at over 15 sites it keeps us all more efficient! With sexual harassment, I investigate ALL of those no matter who is involved - it totally skips all those steps.

Gillian3 · June 2004

I guess this repeats some of what was said so I'll go ahead and repeat it. The idea of going through the "chain of command" and having supervisors deal with issues is preferable, but does require that they be trained to handle the situations in the proper manner. The problem that have seen too often is that this type of direction is used mainly to keep employees from going to HR because the "chain of command" doesn't want the problems to become known by anyone outside of their departments. This is shortsighted because if problems fester the employee will go outside at some point anyway. Allowing employees to go to HR is a safety valve, it allows the company to become aware of the problem early on so that it can be fixed inside the company, far preferable than them being fixed by an outsider. I have had this conversation with many a manager, some agreed, some didn't.

FunHRBanker · June 2004

Thank you all for your comments. I will discuss this again with my supervisor when she returns from vacation, just to make sure I am clear on the meaning.

System · June 2004

Allow me to complicate this issue just a bit. If an employee comes to HR with an issue, my first response is to make sure the EE has gone to his supervisor first. 'Open door' does not mean that HR allows EE's to bypass the chain of command. So the EE is sent back to discuss the problem with the supervisor. The problem doesn't get resolved and HR makes the judgement call.

Now if the supervisor comes to HR with a problem employee and seeks advice, it's fine to 'back up the supervisor' by giving direction. HR may suggest that the problem EE be suspended. Now suppose the EE comes to HR with a grievance because he was suspended. Can HR fairly 'hear' the complaint when we've already been involved in the process?

Don, what other avenues do you provide EE's if they feel you've mishandled their issue?

I agree that supervisors must have ongoing refreshers on legal issues.

Don D · June 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-14-04 AT 08:15AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Our entire worldwide corporation has an Ethics Hot Line. It was created for the reporting of ethical violations, serious stuff. But, it is also promoted as an avenue such as you mention. I also make it clear in all employee quarterly meetings that an employee can go to the Operations Manager, whom I do not report to, if they feel I have participated in discipline that was unfairly applied or determined. We have also a published Alternate Dispute Resoultion policy that is available for employees.

Gillian3 · June 2004

Just one more to respond to S.Moll. Sometimes it is the supervisor who is the problem so the chain of command will not work because the chain of command then includes the supervisors supervisor who may take the side of the supervisor. Maybe the next level up has the mentality of "gotta back up my supervisor". Then where is the employee, especially if the employee is right? HR can play a role in this situation by assisting in the resolution. It takes some discernment to recognize when sending the employee back to the supervisor is appropriate and when HR should figure out a way of assisting the resolution - without coming across as intrusive. Ethics hotlines and Alternative Dispute Resolution is the coming thing. I hope it spreads.

System · June 2004

Yes, Gillian, you're right. That mentality among the chain does prevail at times. Right now my employer is not open to ADR. I assist in the resolution when I believe the employee is being treated unfairly - not a popular spot for me to be in among supervisors, but nonetheless, the only other voice the employee may have. For HR, it requires a very thorough understanding of the situation, a good grip on employment law, and the skills and insight to resolve it.

Duties

Comments