Employee Denied To Share Contact Number With Employer. - CiteHR
Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
The person concerned must be counselled and told to give his contact number.
If he is so stubborn and refuses,you can take disciplinary action of violating company rules and regulations.
This kind of refusal is not a simple matter and can be infectious and others may start to follow precedences.

We always ensure that the KYC is done regularly, if there any change in contact number, bank account no, address we should have to update it regularly,
If he is working wid you from last 15 yrs you can provide him a cell phone or you can start to pay monthly mobile allowance as per his grade/designation.

As far as I am aware an employer can request for contact details but not insist that the employee share personal mobile or telephone details. If he has shared his wife's mobile number, that must be the one to be contacted in case of any accidents/emergencies. If the purpose of requesting the mobile number is to contact him related to work, then the company should provide him with a work mobile. I don't think any disciplinary action can be taken against an employee not providing personal mobile details.
Hi Ravita,
Issue him one more formal letter on the same ground, say him his wife contact no. can considered as alternative contact no. but as per the com. policy you should have to submit your own contact no.
Instead of make clause in your com. appointment agreement, make one employee data base policy, make one checklist of require doc. (academic, family and personal) and don't issue an appointment letter, unless employee submit all the ask doc. to HR dept.
Ubaid Raheman.

There is no legal requirement that a person should have a mobile phone and even if he has one, he should share with his employer. He is right if he does not want to share his privacy. By no stretch of imagination, this could be termed as misconduct or insubordination.
Sharing a personal mobile/ landline number with an employer is a choice. In this case, he has given an alternative number (wife) for emergency.
If the company wants to contact him for official work, then company should provide him mobile and pay for connection charges. It seems that the company does not want to buy him mobile because in that case the company has to provide mobiles to all employees of similar rank (I guess its 30).
You can request him. But it cannot be treated as misconduct.
For more information, check www.labourlawhub.com

Hi ravita

I am a little late in this discussion.

You have a site assistant at a construction site who has not given his contact details.

The nature of the job is such that it requires him to be in constant communication and to be available on phone.

In the current scenario, having a mobile phone is a basic job requirement. Some companies even have the rule that they must be on whatsapp since lots of office communication happens through it.

It is also known that the he actually carries a mobile to office.

Further, his contention that at ₹30,000 q month he can't pay for mobile is also not sustainable excuse.

So it's time to stop beating round the bush. The requirement is of business needs and not of personal emergency contact.

Make a change in your employee manual / service manual and in the standing orders (If applicable). Put it a clause that every employee must carry a mobile phone all the time and be contactable during office hours and after office hours. Then send the notice to all employees asking them to comply and to give the details for inclusion in the office contact list. If he still does not do that, issue him a show cause for disciplinary action.

How you approach the matter or tackle it after that depends on his reply to the notice. You must be prepared to terminate him. Having someone openly flout the rules, as it will encourage others to do the same. You are already seeing protests from other employees, and you should not risk adverse impact on business for the same.

I would,suggest also to first speak to,the owner ' managing director asking his approval for the action and ask him (If he is willing), to call and speak to the employee directly but in a no nonsense manner that either he listens to HR requirements or he goes and finds another job.

Companies rules will not above the laws. One can not make make standing order and insert points (one sided favouring company) as per own wish. Model standing order has to be followed in that.
If you insert a clause saying that an employee needs to be connected with his employer 24x7, then you are engaging him for 24x7 which will be treated as unfair labour practice which I believe every company wants to do but not on paper.
If you really want to keep in touch with your employee during the duty hours, buy him a mobile and reimburse the bill.
Misconduct on this ground will not even stand a slightest of chance if challenged before the court. Even terminating an employee for not having a mobile phone will result in punishment not proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
For more info check my blog www.labourlawhub.com

I fully agree with the above views. If discipline is equated with subjugation and dissent, that too on personal private matters, with misconduct we are reducing, I am afraid, HR as a tool for reducing corporate managements to Khap Panchayats. In this context, it would be instructive to recall the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 30/3/1999 in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999(3) SCC679 (http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/img...filename=16926 = http://indiankanoon.org/doc/888207) -

“On joining Govt. service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favour of the Govt. The Govt., only because it has the power to appoint does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Govt. by providing job opportunities to its citizens only fulfils its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of the State Policy. The employee, on taking up an employment only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like Instrumentalities of the Govt. or Statutory or Autonomous Corporations etc., is regulated by the terms of contract of service or Service Rules made by the Central or the State Govt. under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or other Statutory Rules including Certified Standing Orders. The fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution or the basic human rights are not surrendered by the employee.”

The above ratio, I submit, applies with much more vigour in application to private employment as the terms of such employment are governed by the terms of a valid contract and no conditions or terms of any instrument can encroach upon the ordinary rights of the citizen unless there exists a valid law duly enacted by the Legislature.

Private sector jobs are not like government jobs where responsibility and accountability are gone with the wind.
So saying that the Supreme Court gave a particular judgment in context of refusal to do overtime, means an employee who needs to be in communication and aware being a site assistant will not need to give his contact number, is a bit spacious.

This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™