Archive

Posts Tagged ‘HR software’

The rise of workplace mediation

August 18th, 2010 No comments

from website of Human Resources Magazine at www.humanresourcesmagazine.com.au

Employers are increasingly turning to mediation and dispute resolution to resolve workplace conflicts. HR Leader looks at some of the latest trends and reveals the most common pitfalls for the unsuspecting HR professional

Post global financial crisis, Australian employers are quicker to nip workplace conflict in the bud through alternative dispute resolution and workplace mediation processes. Rather than fighting it out in courts and industrial commissions, large employers are intervening in workplace conflict, especially “employee on employee” conflict, much earlier than was the case even two to three years ago, according to a number of experts.

This is in part due to greater awareness about bullying in the workplace and the legal liability that will accrue to an employer who fails to take action, according to Siobhan Flores-Walsh, a partner at Australian Business Lawyers.

“Many employers are not waiting for an employee to complain about a situation before suggesting that the parties engage in some form of conflict resolution process,” she explains. “Employers tell us that if they wait until the formal complaints process is triggered, the matter will often bog down in an internal investigation process that can be damaging to relationships. Of course, early intervention is consistent with OHS obligations.”

The forms of conflict resolution processes adopted by employers are also evolving, says Flores-Walsh, who has worked in employment law and industrial relations for 18 years, including HR roles in the oil and media industries.

“While conciliation and mediation are popular, we are also noticing employers sending their employees to conflict resolution training as a preventative mechanism,” she observes.

“In addition, in circumstances where senior employees are in conflict with each other, some employers are asking employees to engage in conflict resolution training as a precursor to them trying to resolve differences together.”

Issues for HR professionals

A common workplace mediation and dispute resolution mistake made by HR professionals in the management team is to address the symptoms of conflict instead of the cause, according to Anna Booth, director of dispute resolution firm CoSolve.

“They invest in dispute management, seeking to address the stated issues using the disputes procedure, and when agreement is not reached, escalating the issues in the organisation and often to tribunals,” Booth notes.

“One organisation I was with recently was at the tribunal every week. Experienced professionals are looking behind the issues to the relationship and investing time in the painstaking process of building trust and respect between people and establishing the framework for working together.”

A simple yet often overlooked step is to communicate and consult with all the stakeholders, says Booth, who also serves as a Board member of Members Equity Bank and non-executive chair of Slater & Gordon.

“A recent experience saw an entire training program nearly abandoned because management assumed their undoubted expertise would be accepted without question by the workforce representatives, reminding us that how we go about doing things is just as important as what we do,” she recalls.

Flores-Walsh has also noticed that many employers inappropriately require victims of workplace harassment and bullying to effectively “negotiate” an outcome with the very person who has engaged in unlawful conduct against them.

Once an employee’s allegation has been substantiated, she says care should be taken before suggesting that the complainant enter into a dispute resolution process in lieu of, or to supplement, an employer imposed outcome. “Sometimes an employer should simply discipline the perpetrator,” she states.

“We often see employers who, having substantiated a complaint of bullying/harassment, nonetheless do not take disciplinary action against the perpetrator. Rather, the employer gets the parties together to negotiate an outcome.”

The parties are often referred to a mediator to assist them in the process, but Flores-Walsh says this is dangerous territory for an employer to enter. “Mediation is not like a court process where the court is interventionist and attempts to protect \each of the parties,” she says.

“Mediation and other alternate dispute processes essentially abandon the parties to their own skill or lack of skill and do not actively address the operation of power imbalances.”

Flores-Walsh recommends that employers only refer the parties to a substantiated complaint to alternate dispute resolution processes with the utmost of care, as an inappropriate referral could result in the employer breaching its duty of care to an employee by exposing them to risk of psychological injury in circumstances where the employee (typically an already traumatised victim) does not have the skills to cope with the process.

Categories: Articles, Human Resources

Failure to ‘tell all’ a legal minefield for employers

September 16th, 2009 No comments

by Richard Dunks at Vantage Human Capital

http://humanresourceconsultants.blogspot.com/2009/07/failure-to-tell-all-legal-minefield-for.html

This is an interesting article I recently read, by Shana Schreier-Joffe . I think it’s particuarly relevant for employers going through periods of instability and change.

Kate has written previously about the consequences for employers who misrepresent jobs in terms of increased turnover due to employee’s expectations not being met in the job and I think this article provides even more compelling reasons for employers to be upfront with employees.

Richard Dunks

Businesses currently recruiting should be up front with candidates about their business in the current economic climate if they want to avoid exposing themselves to employee claims of misrepresentation by omission.
Companies which withhold important information from prospective employees regarding the future plans and direction of the company or its financial cirumstances, in particular any potential restructuring that may occur in the future, may give rise to legal action by misled employees.

In fact, misrepresentation by omission could affect all companies recruiting in the current environment, and for companies that don’t take heed, potential legal action could include claims for damages for lost remuneration, commissions or other benefits the employee had been promised. For example, if a candidate is offered a role overseeing a team of 15, or reporting directly to the CEO, yet three months into the role he discovers that his team will be reduced or redeployed elsewhere, or that restructuring will greatly diminish his position in the company hierarchy, then he will understandably feel disappointed and even angered that the role has changed so dramatically from what had been originally presented to him.

If these changes were envisaged by the company at the time of recruitment and not disclosed to the employee, the employee may well have some legal recourse.
Most employers have been so used to ‘talking up’ their business to potential employees, that they do not realise how important it has become to be candid in the midst of the current economic climate. Employers who are currently hiring should err on the side of disclosure with candidates.

Employers should carefully consider all communications to candidates regarding the role and state of their business, including any discussions or information provided by recruitment agents acting on behalf of the company. This should include any information provided verbally, in writing or specified within the employment contract. While I can understand why employers might be reluctant to openly discuss potential changes that may occur to their business, or the difficult financial position of the company, potential employees need to have all the appropriate information available to allow them to make an informed decision about their careers and employment situation.

Employers should not hide or try to downplay potential workplace changes, as not all changes are necessarily viewed as reactions to negative business performance. There are many reasons why a relatively well performing business might have plans to restructure or make significant changes to their workplaces, whether to create or maximise a competitive advantage or simply adapt and benefit from current market conditions.

Practical advice to employers:

  • Be upfront as much as possible about the state of the business, and any planned changes
  • Avoid overstating the role, job stability or future opportunities
  • Don’t exaggerate the performance of the business

If there are potential workplace changes that are of a particular concern or likely to impact that role, and which may leave the company at risk of litigation, ensure that they are disclosed to the potential employee. If it will significantly impact the role performed by the potential employee or the employee’s ongoing employment, then ensure details are recorded in writing in the letter of offer or contract of employment.
Shana Schreier-Joffe is a Partner at Harmers Workplace Lawyers

The original link for the full article is: http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/resources/failure-to-tell-all-a-legal-minefield-for-employers-20090629-d1wj.html

Categories: Articles, Human Resources