Given that most of our time is spent at work and the fact that we’re social beings, it’s inevitable that we establish social relationships which may well end up in romance.
The question to be asked is, when Cupid shoots his arrow in your direction do you need to duck and dive to prevent your employer from growling at you or can you get weak at the knees, giggle a little and embrace the relationship with your boss sitting back and giving you the thumbs up?
What exactly are the reasons for employers either embracing or pooh-poohing employees who succumb to that delightful, irresistible emotion called love?
According to an article published in “People Management” magazine (pg 18), 11 Feb 2010 entitled “A Match made in Heaven or Hell” Tim Smedley offers the following answers:
The employer has one of two choices. Firstly, to enforce policy banning relationships within the workplace solely to protect the organisation from being subject to breech of confidentiality within various departments or divisions, accusations of favouritism and a host of other complicated management and HR issues.
The second option is to take a more relaxed approach to a very natural emotion and to give people the space to be themselves while at the same time respecting the values and boundaries within the organisation.
Smedley points out that there is a place for the implementation of policies banning relationships. Examples of this would be where romantic liaisons compromise the ethical barriers between traders and analysts giving one the leverage to influence the others decision. Another example would be the enforcement of policy when employees engage in the work environment in countries and cultures which forbid relationships outside of marriage.
Generally speaking though, organisations that do enforce policy banning relationships do so because of the numerous problems caused as a result of relationships in the workplace. Such an instance may be a boss who is in relationship with a subordinate. This relationship tends to fuel accusations of favouritism and can damage the morale of other employees which leads to gossip, lack of trust etc.
A particularly difficult situation is when one partner works in HR and is exposed to various confidential complications within the workplace yet can not share any of this information with his or her partner. Preventing such complications arising in the workplace may seem like the answer to the employer hence the ban, however, human beings will be human beings and will generally take the relationship under cover which brings a whole new set of deceptive complications.
In his article, Smedley quotes employment lawyer Roger Byard, of Cripps Harries Hall, as saying: “Any employment tribunal asked to consider the lawfulness of such a policy would be highly likely to find it in breach of the right to a private life, protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998”. He goes on to say that having a no-relationship policy would not provide protection against claims arising out of relationship breakdown such as issues of harassment, discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Byard advice to the employer is to steer away from prescriptive policies which suppress human nature. He suggests that employers take a mature approach to the relationship recognising that relationships will naturally form within the working environment.
Perhaps having a few balloons, some red roses and a broad smile on a love struck employees face is not so bad and may go a long way to cheering the office up.
