Managing Employee Relationships At Work

What should employers and managers consider?

We spend a great deal of time with our colleagues and sharing the highs and lows of working life means that we often form strong bonds with them. So, relationships are bound to develop, be they fleeting fancies, long-term dating, illicit affairs, or something that leads to wedding bells.

However, in the wake of the #MeToo movement in 2017, romantic relationships are increasingly discussed in the language of power, and a “power imbalance” between the participants in a relationship is almost uniformly understood as being bad. How power is defined in each case is a little murkier and the problem is that it is never entirely clear whether the other person in the relationship objected to its existence.

The Power Dynamic

If someone is a direct supervisor, the power dynamic is pretty clear. But what about colleagues? Or a relationship with someone who has a more advanced position but does not directly control your employment status?

Or at a university, what about a professor in one department in a relationship with a student over the age of consent in an entirely other department?

What is the equation that will tell us how to add and subtract all the differing levels of power for every relationship?

From an employment perspective, the practical issue is not necessarily whether one person is more senior than the other, but whether they have any influence over the other’s pay, promotion, appraisal, disciplinary action, redundancy or other employment decisions. These are the situations where conflicts of interest, or at least the perception of favouritism, are most likely to arise.

Is it the employer’s business anyway?

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into domestic law the right to respect for private and family life. While the Human Rights Act applies directly to public authorities rather than generally giving employees of private employers a direct claim against their employer, unnecessary interference with employees’ private lives should still be approached with caution.

An outright ban on romantic involvement may be difficult to justify in many workplaces, particularly where there is no genuine conflict of interest or other workplace risk. After all, how much power over our private lives do we want to give to our employers?

The Nestlé affair

Laurent Freixe, who was the CEO of Nestlé, was dismissed after an investigation found that he had been involved in an undisclosed romantic relationship with a direct subordinate, in breach of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct.

There was a clear difference in the respective power within the Company between those involved. But does that necessarily mean that every relationship between employees at different levels of seniority should be prohibited?

In any event, it looks bad, doesn’t it? We’ve seen it so many times, it’s almost a cliché: the powerful boss in a relationship with a more junior employee, leaving colleagues wondering whether that relationship has influenced decisions about pay, promotion or opportunities.

But there is an important distinction to make. A relationship between a senior and more junior employee is not automatically harassment simply because there is a difference in status. The real difficulty for an employer arises where that difference in power creates a conflict of interest or one person is able to influence the other’s pay, promotion or other employment opportunities.

Nestlé said that the undisclosed relationship violated its Code of Business Conduct. The case provides a useful example of why employers may legitimately require relationships to be disclosed where there is a direct reporting relationship or another genuine conflict of interest.

Given how widespread harassment at work is, taking these issues seriously is undoubtedly important. But it is equally important not to conflate a consensual workplace romance with harassment.

There are, of course, issues with mixing business with pleasure, particularly where one person has influence over the other’s working life. However, a strict blanket ban on relationships does not remove those risks and will not, by itself, address genuine cases of harassment in the workplace.

What should businesses do about it?

The collision between the private and public lives can be problematic from a management perspective and having individuals who are involved in a relationship working alongside each other presents various legal and practical concerns for employers.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no general legal rules preventing or governing relationships at work. That does not mean workplace relationships are legally irrelevant. Depending on the circumstances, they can give rise to issues involving discrimination and harassment, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, data protection and disciplinary matters.

No grey area allowed

Many employers seek to regulate personal relationships in the workplace. Some companies have decided to turn greys into blacks and whites with flat “no relationship” policies. In particular, some companies forbid relationships between an employee and someone in their chain-of-command.

A policy which sets out what the employer expects in such situations can help to prevent problems and provide a clear framework for dealing with them when they arise.

Without any relevant policy or rules in place to cover the situation, the mere fact of a workplace relationship will not normally, by itself, be a reason to discipline an employee, although inappropriate behaviour linked to the relationship may be.

Where there is a relationship at work policy and this is breached, disciplinary action may be appropriate depending on the circumstances. Employers should consider the seriousness of the breach, whether the rule was clear and understood and whether the action being considered is reasonable and proportionate. A fair disciplinary procedure should also be followed.

A relationship at work policy can assist an employer by setting out the expected standards of behaviour and providing a framework for managers when dealing with such situations. Staff must know and understand what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

Regardless of whether a policy is in place, employers and employees will be acutely aware that any workplace relationship can lead to gossip, envy and a potentially negative impact on morale and atmosphere.

It is easy to predict that co-workers may believe that such connections will unfairly influence promotions, pay rises or redundancies, or may impact confidentiality. This is why changing reporting lines or removing an individual from decisions affecting their partner can sometimes be more effective than attempting to prohibit the relationship itself. For example, a manager should not ordinarily be making decisions about their partner’s pay, promotion, appraisal or disciplinary action, even where both individuals believe that they can remain objective.

If a policy is adopted covering workplace relationships, this should work alongside and complement the employer’s policies and procedures on sexual harassment, bullying and harassment, equality and discrimination, whistleblowing, grievances and disciplinary matters.

Preventing Sexual Harassment

There has been an important change in the law since this article was originally written.

Since 26 October 2024, employers have been under a positive legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers. This means that employers should not simply wait until a complaint is made. They should consider where the risks of sexual harassment may arise within their organisation and take appropriate steps to reduce those risks.

This is particularly relevant when considering workplace relationships. Power imbalances between workers, work-related social events, alcohol, business travel and overnight stays are amongst the factors which may increase the risk of sexual harassment and which employers should consider.

Importantly, a consensual relationship is not, in itself, sexual harassment. However, consent can change. Conduct which was previously welcomed may subsequently become unwanted, including after a relationship has ended. Employers should therefore avoid assuming that because two employees were previously in a consensual relationship, subsequent conduct between them cannot amount to harassment.

The law is also being strengthened further from 30 October 2026. Employers will be required to take all reasonable steps, rather than simply reasonable steps, to prevent sexual harassment. Employers will also face liability for harassment of employees by third parties, such as customers and clients, unless they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent it.

Having a policy is therefore only part of the picture. Employers should assess the particular risks within their organisation, take appropriate preventative measures, ensure managers understand their responsibilities and provide employees with clear and accessible ways of raising concerns.

Should Employers have other priorities?

Some organisations express their blanket ban on workplace relationships using language of protection. Enforcing such a policy requires consistency, openness and fairness, and does not resolve all the difficulties and risks employers face.

It is increasingly common for organisations to express their blanket ban on workplace relationships using language of protection, presenting themselves as benevolent figures only interested in the safety of their workers. This is a bit obvious and many workers, of any gender, are likely to assume that they actually are more interested in reducing their own liability.

Therefore, in contrast to a blanket ban, a more nuanced approach requiring staff simply to disclose a workplace relationship so that an employer can take pre-emptive steps to avoid conflicts of interest, for example, by changing reporting lines, stands a better chance of being upheld.

In practice, disclosure requirements are likely to be most useful where there is a reporting relationship, or one employee has influence over the other’s pay, promotion, appraisal, disciplinary action or other employment decisions. Employers should avoid requiring disclosure of employees’ private relationships where there is no genuine workplace reason for doing so.

The Nestlé case provides a useful illustration of why disclosure can matter. The purpose should not be to require employees to report every aspect of their private lives, but to identify relationships which create a genuine workplace conflict, particularly where one person directly manages or has significant influence over the other.

Further, for most organisations, it would be a better use of their time to take effective steps to prevent and address harassment in their workplaces rather than hope it all goes away with a strict ban on workplace relationships.

Rather than regulating the interpersonal relationships of their employees, perhaps employers would be better served developing and implementing real structural protections for their employees. Going after “problematic” relationships one by one only serves to improve the company’s image while doing nothing particularly for the vast majority of the people in its care. The introduction of the preventative duty in relation to sexual harassment makes those protections more important than ever.

Ultimately, the aim should not be to police employees’ private lives. It should be to manage genuine conflicts of interest, take effective steps to prevent harassment and ensure that concerns are dealt with fairly and sensitively when they arise.

Don’t forget getting advice from a Solicitor does not have to be complicated or costly! And we can help you to navigate the tricky area of employee relationships at work.

Please do get in touch for a free no obligation discussion on 01983 897003.

This article was updated from the original published article by Shelly Mughal