BP tightens workplace romance rules after Looney scandal: Legal experts weigh in
BP has tightened its workplace relationship policy months after the CEO was ousted for failing to disclose his affairs with colleagues.
Employment lawyers explain to City PM what this new relationship policy will mean.
Last September, the Irish-born Bernard Looney had to resign from his role as chief executive of the oil giant after it was revealed he was “not fully transparent” about past personal relationships with colleagues.
The scandal has resulted in BP tightening up its internal policies as employees are now warned to disclose any intimate relationships they have at work.
Reuters reported that BP employees must now disclose “whether or not they feel they represent a conflict of interest”.
Emma Bartlett, partner at CM Murray noted that it is “not always commonplace” to have a relationship policy at work, but added that when it does, “is it not unheard of” for it to require full disclosure.
Christine Caffrey, senior associate at SA Law explained that if a policy is brought in requiring staff to declare any intimate relationships, “which is something that has been seen in the US”, then it is likely that disciplinary action would follow if the policy is breached.”
Bartlett noted that BP lost Looney following an investigation into whether he should have disclosed a personal relationship. “There is likely to be good reason for BP to vary its policy, to managers, from only disclosing if there is a conflict of interest to any relationship,” she stated.
However, the question that arises is whether BP will retrospectively investigate and discipline these disclosures or apply an amnesty to them”, explained Bartlett.
She added that BP will need to act consistently either way and be careful not to breach the implied term of trust and confidence in applying discipline where the disclosure was not previously made to BP because the individual perceived no conflict of interest”.
Outside BP, Caffrey noted that with “public scrutiny when it comes to senior executives at global giants”, this may warrant tighter rules when it comes to workplace relationships.
James Green, director at Burges Salmon, pointed out that relationships at work can cause several issues.
“Most obviously, an employee finds themselves in a position where their position as a senior manager comes into conflict with a personal relationship, whether that is in the context of access to promotion, career opportunities, or work allocation,” explained Green.
Andrew Secker a partner at Mills & Reeve suggested that employers should be making clear is how workplace relationships can create “conflicts of interest, confidentiality and affect perceptions of fairness within the workplace”.
Secker stated that his team has seen several examples of senior executives’ decisions about the personal relationships they have (or seek to have) with work colleagues, particularly those where there is an imbalance of power, undermining confidence in their judgement as business leaders.
Green also noted that difficulties can also arise at the end of relationships, particularly where employees work closely together.
He stated that a blanket ban on relationships at work is not practical or realistic. Still, he noted that the complexity of human relationships does not fit very well into a neat HR policy.
Green warned that “organisations should also think carefully before imposing any formal requirement to disclose relationships.”