Signed: In a Quandary Over Love Love may be a many splendored thing, but love is a battlefield, too.And therein lies the rub for every employers' HR practices in this area. However, there are some legal principles and practical matters to consider as you decide what policy best suits your agency in dealing with these real-life "love connections."People looking for a simple solution may advocate a complete no-fraternization policy.This is one of those topics where employer policies are all over the map, especially in the nonprofit world where it is not uncommon for agencies to be founded by families or spouses. But this strident viewpoint ignores the reality of work/life blending supported by a 2010 survey that found 37% of workers have dated someone they met at work and 30% of them have married a workmate.Rather than adopting a policy that outright prohibits intimate relationships at work, you may find that a more workable policy strives to balance the needs of your organization with the realities of life.
I've been tasked with updating our Employee Handbook.
If a policy or procedure is difficult for an employee to find and it has not been specifically brought to their attention, it may not be reasonable for an employer to try to rely on it if a misconduct issue for not following a policy requirement comes up.
Whether employee (and/or union) consultation is required for policies varies from workplace to workplace; this requirement can arise from being stated in an employment agreement (individual or collective), or can come from a policy itself.
Many of the sample handbooks seem to have anti-nepotism or conflict of interest policies which prohibit employees from dating or being in a relationship with co-workers.
Are we legally required to prohibit office relationships?