Office romances are an more and more thorny situation for firms

It was an ignominious finish to a stellar profession for BP’s Bernard Looney.

He joins the rising pile of chief executives felled due to their failure to disclose romantic relationships in the workplace.

It’s changing into an more and more thorny situation for companies. Aware of the reputational injury these sorts of relationships can do, they’re grappling with how one can greatest handle them.

It means workers, even under the chief degree, are more and more having to make private disclosures to HR.

Although there aren’t any legal guidelines that ban romantic relationships throughout the office – and for legitimate causes – companies are drawing up insurance policies of their very own.

It’s a balancing act as a result of companies should respect their workers’ proper to a personal life, whereas additionally recognising that the dynamics of romantic relationships in a office may be difficult – particularly when it includes staff with totally different ranges of seniority.

Read extra: Finding successor to Looney will not be easy

Some employers now require workers to signal “love contracts,” whereby they have to disclose and make sure that they consent to a relationship with one other member of workers.

Others are banning senior workers from partaking in a majority of these relationships altogether.

Read extra from enterprise:
The Range strikes £5m deal to buy collapsed Wilko’s brand
Four people face fraud charges over Patisserie Valerie’s collapse
Economy contracts by worse than expected 0.5% in July

Matt Gingell, an employment lawyer on the legislation agency Lombards, stated: “I think that employers have to protect the workforce.

“And, in fact, employers should guarantee that the dynamics of groups are honest, and that there is not favouritism or perceived favouritism (because of a romantic relationship).

“Also, that there aren’t situations where there can be an abuse of power, where people in senior roles are effectively abusing their position and adversely affecting perhaps more junior staff.”