PCS Weekly - HR Topic
Employee Relations and Disputes
Trying to keep up with the ever-changing state and local laws can be challenging. Check out the most recent state law changes below.
Question: A new employee told coworkers that she received a signing bonus. Now they’re upset, saying they’ve been here longer and haven’t gotten anything extra. What should I do about this situation?
Answer from Janelle, SHRM-CP, SHRM-PMQ:
First, don’t reprimand the new employee who shared her salary information. Discussing pay is a protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. You can read about this law and what protections it provides to employees on the platform.
Second, it may be worth thinking about why you offer signing bonuses but not retention bonuses, and whether you can afford to do both. If you’re offering sign-on bonuses because it’s hard to hire right now, realize that not offering matching retention bonuses may ultimately lead to more open positions if your long-term employees decide to leave over these kinds of inequities.
Additionally, be aware that offering one type of bonus but not the other could create pay disparities between employees who do similar work, which could expose you to discrimination and pay equity claims.
Third, be transparent about pay decisions as appropriate. Sharing your reasoning with employees can provide clarity and understanding, helping to prevent surprises and speculation.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: Our previous HR director was lax about policy enforcement, particularly around tardiness and dress code. What’s the best way to start enforcing these policies consistently?
Answer from Janelle, SHRM-CP, SHRM-PMQ:
If possible, we recommend meeting with employees to inform them that, going forward, these policies will be uniformly enforced. If meetings aren’t a viable option, a company-wide announcement is the next best option. Regardless of how you initially communicate the change, you may want to provide a couple of reminders in the first few weeks after the change—old habits can be hard to break. Make sure you document when and how this change in policy enforcement is communicated to employees.
If appropriate for your workforce, you could couple the new enforcement with fun incentives for employees and teams that arrive to work on time or otherwise successfully follow your policies. Company-provided lunches, for example, are a popular reward and likely to motivate punctuality and appropriate attire.
If employees continue to be late or dress inappropriately, you can and should discipline them in accordance with your policy. But do keep in mind that with dress codes and attendance policies, you may need to provide reasonable accommodations when required by law.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: We’ve generally been tolerant of harmless pranks, but recently, an employee placed a suggestive picture on a coworker’s workstation and another employee saw it and complained. How should we respond?
Answer from Kyle, PHR:
It sounds like this prank could have crossed the line into harassment, even though the person who was offended wasn’t necessarily the intended target. As an employer, you have an obligation to prevent and deal with harassment complaints promptly and thoroughly. To that end, follow your standard procedure to investigate the incident and take appropriate action. Be sure to document every step of your investigation and resulting actions taken so you can show you fulfilled your obligations. Having a clear record will also help you ensure similar situations are handled consistently in the future.
Going forward, you could prohibit pranks of any sort, but if they remain harmless and inoffensive while also inspiring joy in the workplace, a blanket ban might not be necessary.
On the other hand, if most employees don’t enjoy the pranks or they’re significantly disruptive to the workplace, it might be time to lay down some new expectations around professionalism. In either case, employees should understand what lines not to cross and that “just having fun” is no excuse for violating company policies.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law
Question: We are hosting an event and would like to allow our employees to bring a guest. Should we put limits on who they can invite (e.g., their spouse)?
Answer from Kyle, PHR:
The decision is up to you, but we don’t generally recommend limiting who can be a “plus one.” Not everyone has a spouse or significant other, so allowing employees to bring whomever they want is more inclusive and inviting. They’re more likely to attend and have a good time. Not placing limits on who can be a plus one also saves you from having to define terms like “significant other” or “partner” and determining whether certain guests qualify.
That said, depending on the type of event, it could be reasonable to limit guests to those who are at least 18 or 21 years old.If you opt to restrict who can be a guest, inform employees ahead of time and be prepared to explain your reasoning.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: A remote employee’s roommate has been disrupting their work to the point that their performance is suffering. How should we handle this?
Answer from Jenny, PHR:
This situation should be handled the same way you’d manage most work disruptions affecting an employee’s performance. Start by having a conversation with the employee about the disruption and explaining your concerns and performance expectations. Remind them that it’s their responsibility to maintain a working environment where they can be successful. Feel free to brainstorm solutions with them—like a different room for their workstation or creating a house rule that calls for quiet during work hours—but it’s ultimately on the employee to make whatever changes are necessary.
If things don’t improve, follow your standard process for managing performance. You can learn more about performance management on the platform.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: We have two employees who openly dislike each other. How can we help them work together effectively?
Answer from Kyle, PHR:
Personal animosity can create a toxic environment and obstruct productivity beyond the individuals directly involved. We recommend the following practices to help improve the situation:
Investigate the cause or causes of the conflict. It’s easy to jump to conclusions about what is happening. Speak separately with the employees involved and try to understand the tension between them. Is it a personality clash, a misunderstanding, or a difference in working style? Once you understand the cause, you can work to address it and find a solution.
Encourage the employees to communicate openly with each other. You may need to facilitate a conversation to help them mediate the situation and communicate openly. If your employees are struggling to communicate effectively, they may benefit from communication training, including active listening and conflict resolution.Set clear expectations for behavior, communication, and performance, and make sure everyone is on the same page. Create a shared vision for the team and encourage everyone to work towards that common goal. Tell your employees that they don’t need to be friends, but they do need to be able to work together and should be professional in the workplace.
Lead by example. Model open communication and positive conflict resolution with your teams and peers.Follow up to ensure that things are improving (or have reached an acceptable stasis) and that your expectations, as well as each employee’s needs, are being met.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: We usually don’t mind employees chit-chatting while they work, but some recent politics-related conversations have gotten rather loud and heated. Can we tell employees not to discuss politics at work?
Answer from Kyle, PHR:
You can limit political speech and associated conduct that are not work-related—provided you don’t infringe on protected Section 7 rights or applicable state laws.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act gives non-supervisory employees the right to talk about the terms and conditions of their employment and the right to unionize. While this law protects some political activities, it doesn’t give employees the right to discuss politics during work hours unless they have an impact on the terms and conditions of their employment.
That said, we recommend focusing on the effects these discussions might be having on job performance rather than on the specific topic of conversation. If an employee spends too much time engaged in chit-chat, regardless of the topic, they’re probably not performing their best. If nothing else, they’re distracting others. You’re also certainly welcome to tell employees that all conversations should be held with indoor voices and that non-work-related topics should be reserved for break areas where they won’t be distracting those who need to focus.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: What is progressive discipline?
Answer from Wendy, PHR:
January 31, 2025
Progressive discipline is a process for addressing performance or behavioral issues with corrective action. Instead of immediately demoting, suspending, or terminating an employee who messes up, you remind them of your policies, give them a chance to do better, and explain the consequences if they don’t.
The process usually begins with a relatively informal conversation to address the issue (which would generally count as the “oral warning”) before moving on to a series of written warnings (e.g., first, second, final) followed by termination if the warnings don’t correct the issue.
Following the same steps consistently for similar situations can help reduce the likelihood of discrimination. However, note that progressive discipline isn’t appropriate for every infraction. Violations like theft, egregious harassment, or assault, for instance, might warrant immediate termination even on the first offense.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
Question: Should we ban romantic relationships in our workplace?
Answer from Wendy, PHR:
February 12, 2025
You’re certainly welcome to try, but the heart wants what it wants. Bans of this sort are difficult to enforce and can make employees feel like you’re interfering in their personal lives, potentially diminishing trust and driving these relationships “underground.” If you do spot a workplace romance in progress, it’s often best to simply remind employees about your harassment policy and general expectations for workplace conduct. However, we do recommend prohibiting relationships between managers and their direct reports to prevent perceptions of favoritism or harassment, which could create legal and reputational risks for the organization.
If you decide to prohibit all employee dating, be careful when wording your policy. Courts have found that use of the word “fraternize” (in a non-fraternization policy) without additional explanation could potentially discourage employees from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Also, employees may not know what that word means. To avoid both lawyers and confusion, you’ll want to use language that specifically refers to employee dating or romantic relationships.
This Q&A does not constitute legal advice and does not address state or local law.
