I would like to know few things if someone can reply me please do so. if someone is forced to resign for no no fault of him but because he as HR person raised his voice for justice, in the particular company. there are lots of anomaly in the rules applications and labour department is just behind money. kindly suggest me what action as HR you may take other than sacrificing your job?
From India, Delhi
PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Partner - Risk Management
Consultant In Legal Matters
Human Resource Generalist
VinodVenuFirst management should understand that what the HR is trying is to say.
If HR raises voice means its for management benefit and growth not for his personal savings.
Anyhow you can again talk to your management with all the reports for what purpose you have raised your voice , and explain them about what's the use for the same.
Even after explaining/saying the benefits if they want you to resign .
NO OPTION YOU MUST.
From India, Bangalore
firstname.lastname@example.orgRaising voice by HR for a management cause is not a reasonable cause to terminate. There is no need to resign. Pl specify nature of your organisation and in which State you are working. Thanks Sushil
From India, New Delhi
saswatabanerjeeIt is not the job of HR to get "justice" done for the employees. That would be the job of the trade union, or the welfare officer mandated under factories act. Which is the reason why the welfare officer rules are there and they can not be removed from their job.
The job of the HR department is to protect the interests of the company, by ensuring that employees are motivated, discipline is maintained, attrition is reduced and employees have a long term loyalty to the firm. The most important function is to insulate the company from loss on account of labour disruption.
So first, get your job and purpose clear.
If you feel the comoany is doing something wrong, you need to analyse the impact on the long term survival of the firm, legal issues that can crop up and how it will affect the owners and management. Once that is dine, you should try and convince the management of the benefits of being compliant, fair and in line with best practices.
If you can not convince, then you need to do what the management wants you to do, short of unethical action (eg promising something that is not going to be approved). If you can't do that, then you should look for a company that is more in line with your expectation and ethics
From India, Mumbai
sharma nkIt is duty of HR Head to keep the industrial ATMOSPHERE IN A good shape for smooth production and achievement of fixed targets. Redressal of employees grievance is also part of HR responsibility not of Labour Union President, he is the only instrument for raising of matter .First of all convince the
Mgt. Pros/cons of the issue and put forward your views, Good Mgt.,will always
adhere to your views and in case they do not agree to your views,than it will be open for you Either to Dance at the tune of Mgt. or Find some other alternative. N.K.SHARMA
From India, Chandigarh
saswatabanerjeeFrom what I understand of the post, it's not settlement of grevience but HR taking up the demand for "Justice" that has caused the termination. HR is a part of the management and has to toe the management line. Being responsible for maintaining indistrial peace, and being knowledgable in the subject, HR often raises points before the management of where their policy is wrong and how it can affect the long term effectiveness of the organisation. But HR can not fight for justice of workmen. That is what the union is there for, that is what the welfare officers are appointed for. Unless ofcourse the action is so balantly illegal that it affects the ethics of the person in HR. I assume that has not happened. So, I would still say HR is out of line of he is fighting for justice. (As different from bringing to managements notice what is wrong and suggesting that they should change)
From India, Mumbai
TupaiDear Mr. Banerjee
You are right that HR is there to save the interest of the company by maintaining the decipline, attrition and etc., but you also told that he is there to short out long term gain if a company is not looking after his own employee and also didnt have an ethical approach how does it will achive long term gain, where Human Asset are the most important asset of any organisation and HR's are there to look after it.
wadhwainduHello Vinod Venu,
You have mentioned quite a few things in your query. What is the main issue:
Is it asking for justice and raising your voice in favour of employees?
Is it the anomalies in implementation of rules/ laws and chasing by labour department?
Is it termination of HR for raising its voice for employees?
First of all the issue has to be clear.
In my opinion the role of HR deptt is two way. It is a bridge between employees and employers. HR communicates Management's views and expectations to employees. HR is also supposed to communicate concerns of employees to Management. Union comes up when employees are aggrieved and Management fails to look after employees.
HR has to act keeping in view the real issue.
If the real issue is anomalies in the implementation of labour laws/ rules and consequent trouble by labour deptt, then HR should study the anomalies and their impact on the company/ business, and sensitize the management accordingly.
If the issue is injustice with employees, then HR has to understand what the injustice is and how it is impacting the employees. Is it happening due to the ignorance of the Management or this is Management's style and strategy of running the company. Are employees coming to HR with grievances or HR has taken it as a self proclaimed responsibility? Here the issue has to be handled with tact, diplomacy and sensitivity. Ultimately HR has to support the Management to run the business as ethically as possible.
If HR acts after due diligence of the matter and communicates with the Management in a responsible and tactful manner, I do not think HR person will be terminated for putting the issues on the table.
If none of these approaches is workable, then you may be in a wrong place, and should look for a company where alignment of your personality with the company culture is possible.
All the best to you.
Founder & Principal Consultant
Mob : 09811513715
e mail :
website : www.aspiringpeople.in
From India, New Delhi
samagatachatterjeeWhat I feel, his job is to do his job properly. In all the cases HRs are not the decision makers but the proposers. He should work closely with Co.s legal team and any anomaly towards implementation should be formally presented before the Management as prospective exposure for the Co. and its impact on the Co. both from legal and financial point of view. If such presentation fails to grab the attention of the Management, then HR has no way available other than implement the faulty process.
In my opinion HRs are the key persons between the Management and the staffs. Hence doing anything other than his job means he is not doing it properly. In case of any wrong if done by the Management then it should be answerable before the Court. HR is no way responsible to do Justice but to do best use of any worst situation.
However thats what I feel.
From India, Tumkur
email@example.comHR manager is responsible for compliance of various labour laws. If at the behest of an employer he makes false entries in register of employees and shows lesser number of employees to benefit employer and to cause loss to employees, he is responsible for facing prosecution. For example under section 14 of EPF Act, the words are "whoever" makes false representation, he will be liable for imprisonment for one year. Thus manager of HR being responsible for finalising the list of covered employees will have to face music. Similarly under the Shops and Establishment Acts, if he makes false entries in registers, he will be prosecuted because e.g. under Bombay and Delhi Acts, the words are manager and person respectively for such provisions. The law does not give him protection to say that the employer forced him to do that. Nor under IPC such a defence can be taken. It is not that in today's era of RTI the things can remain hidden as regards true affairs. An aggrieved employee will some day or the other fight for his rights and then it is only that manager will be caught. In such a situation, if the HR wants to raise voice for justice or protecting his position or interest of management, the sacrificing of job is not necessary because in some State shops and Establishment Acts, such termination will be set aside.
From India, New Delhi