Facing Gender Bias at Work: How Should an HR Professional Respond to Union Leader's Threat?

I need your valuable suggestions and inputs on the above subject matter. One of my colleagues, a female friend, is an HR professional with an MNC company that has had a union for the last 5 years. She is one of the senior employees there. Due to some salary issues, she had an argument with the Union Leader. During the argument, the Union Leader threatened her with the words, "you are a lady, be like a lady," which left her very disappointed. Please suggest what steps she should take against him as per the law.

Thanks and Regards,

Dear Amar, you need to elaborate more about their communication. Only saying "you are a lady, be like a lady" can't be proven as threatening. Is there any abuse or any words he has used that are affecting her professionalism, personal life, or her mental and physical well-being? Please provide us with more details so that members can assist you properly.

Addressing Workplace Harassment: Legal Steps for Female Employees

He indirectly threatened her in front of all workers, saying, "Aap ek aurat ho aurat ki tarah raho, yahi aapke liye tik hai," and misbehaved with her by speaking loudly and arrogantly. I just want to know what action, as a female employee, she can take against him as per the law.

Thanks and Regards,

The comment made was beyond sexism and a direct attack on her safety. Please ask her to report this to the management team or the authority responsible for the safety of the employees. Under no circumstances can she take this lightly. Please ask her to set a precedent to avoid any such threats in the future. Our experts can guide you further on how to resolve this correctly.

Regards,

As rightly stated by (Cite Contribution), there is no sexual overtone in the remark; hence, there is no sexual harassment. I recently dealt with a matter where a lady employee complained of a male colleague making the remark, "If you were male, I would have got your clothes removed." The Complaints Committee, after considering the whole episode, felt that there was no sexual harassment in this matter.

Yet, in this case, it is threatening and intimidating to management personnel if we look at the attending circumstances. Therefore, as management, this must not be allowed to pass by, and I would recommend action against the leader for the misconduct of threatening, intimidating, etc., as per the Standing Order clause. If further details are provided, more clarity could be provided.

Regards,
KK

I think you should not take this personally and should ignore it. Union leaders will resort to many tactics to get their work done, including abusing the officers. You should stick to the company policy and try to convince them of the same.

Role of an HR Officer

An HR officer is a toxic handler for the well-being of the organization, like Lord Shiva who took poison to protect the world. While implementing company policy, HR officers may become the target of the wrath of union leaders, and that is part of the job of the HR officer; you are paid for that. Most often, it is their show-off to gain the support of members. Ultimately, union leaders also need you.

Proceeding with action for comments made like this may not be useful in the long run. In the case of gross indiscipline, you need to wait for an opportunity to take severe action on a more convincing charge.

I fully agree with the views expressed by (Cite Contribution)1979, and such remarks should not be ignored. The activities of union members should be reported to the seniors in the company. Though it is another issue whether action is taken against such union leaders, such reports will serve as an example for taking action in case of a repeat of such misbehavior in the future by union leaders.

There are TWO ways of looking at the situation you mentioned—that would lead to two different responses.

Response Options

1. Take up the incident very strongly and report the matter to the management or her boss and insist on some sort of apology (maybe that would be a strong word, but the essential intent would be that).

2. Agreeing with VKSajan and D Gurumurthy mentioned—that quite often Union Leaders utilize such situations to impress their followers—and letting it go.

Pros and Cons of Both Responses

If Response (1) is opted for, would that solve this problem but create another new one? This lady is in HR—is she sure that she wouldn't need to deal/interact with this Union Leader again? If yes, then this could be a good response. But if the answer is no, then will she be able to interact with this Union Leader (or any other leader for that matter) professionally in the future? Frankly, I doubt it—basic human psychology would hinder such a professional interaction from both parties to each other. Not sure if this is what your friend wishes to have as a consequence.

If Response (2) is opted for, the chances of this leader, and maybe others later, taking his/their behavior as acceptable by the HR function in toto are quite high. I think it would be a folly to let such reactions/remarks go without any response from the management side.

I would suggest she take it up with her higher-ups and some sort of an indication/rebuke/suggestion (depends on how it's conveyed rather than what is conveyed in such situations) be given to the Union Leader to avoid any such repeats—since that would be detrimental to both him and the HR functionaries.

It needs to be a combination of the 'carrot' and 'stick' together. Else, the chances are that the situation would needlessly get blown out of proportion.

Regards,
TS

This kind of situation needs diplomatic handling. The matter should be reported, and top management should be taken into confidence to ensure that appropriate action is initiated, considering women's safety as a priority. Management has a greater role to play to secure their interests as well as the interests of employees too.

Challenges in Managing Unionized Workforces

I feel that most of the management of the company is helpless. They can't take any action against workers very easily, especially when someone is a union leader. It becomes more difficult as other workers show support. Therefore, management doesn't want to create any more controversy by taking action, as it may result in business disturbance and harm the company's reputation. Consequently, most of the time, HR helps without the support of management. However, if management is strong, action can be taken. In such cases, the company can issue a warning letter for misbehavior.

Thank you.

Practical Suggestions for Handling Union Conflicts

On practical grounds, I have a few suggestions (Mr. VK Sajan is correct):

• Ignore what happened.
• Inform management about it.
• Next time, if possible, opt for video recording so that later channels for suitable action remain open.

Boss, with Union Leaders, it's difficult to fight. And those guys who think—sorry—all those respected HRs who believe Management is always right, go by standing order, go by rules and regulations mentioned in the articles of association during the incorporation of a company for internal management, Sec 5, Companies Act, go by labor laws, general laws... these, that, bla... bla... bla... please don't do that.

Management is not always right, and the same is with Trade Unions. I am not distinguishing between legal or moral grounds. What I mean to say is your life is more important than a job.

For example, say an HR is forfeiting a certain percentage of gratuity on termination of an employee because the employee caused some damages. The Union is saying no. Then, as a senior HR, don't make the mistake of teaching LAW, Payroll, etc., to labor or trade union more than twice if you see the environment getting heated. If labor commits a rape and murder, who will suffer? HR, right? Forget about court cases, police charges, etc. Who will bear the pain? The lady HR, right?

Don't you all think it's much more mature to ignore such issues for some time so that management can be informed, precautionary measures can be taken for all employees' safety—like informing the cops—and in their presence, a discussion can happen? If a party doesn't agree, at least they will be afraid or scared to take the law into their own hands.

And most importantly, to all my HR friends, you can't change the psychology of people. Some nuts will always be there who will say, "if you are a woman, then stay as a woman." The situation becomes more complicated when politicians get involved. So, tackle it smartly.

And FYI, I am saying this as I have handled a team of HR as a Team Leader. Post-completion of regular 2 years MBA-HR & Finance, I am pursuing CA & CS so that I can play with legal elements, which you all call "GO BY LAWS" or "POLICIES." Those who have read the bare Act know very well how many proviso clauses are there in Indian laws, so many loopholes. Everywhere you will find people like me who will tempt you, and you can't do anything, be it by legal means or illegal means. I am from a business family, so I have seen all this. Hence, it's better to ignore.

(SECRET: PEOPLE CALL ME THAT I AM MORE POISONOUS THAN 7 COBRAS, BECAUSE OF MY BRAIN) - I can't use it in good work always. What to do, need money for myself and other employees. If I harass or insult a lady HR, I will do it in such a way that I won't break any laws. I will utilize all the loopholes and holes in the laws. Now, you all tell me what HR should do if I am an employee? Management and Administration can't do anything—nothing illegal. Personally, HR can't do anything, politically connected, possesses muscle power or money power. She has to adjust or ignore—if she loves the job, else resign. ALL THESE STRATEGIES CUNNING TRADE UNION LEADERS USED.

Regards, Sovik B

[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Dear Amar, it is not that the members are incapable of suggesting a stern action against the union leader, as you have pointed out in your second email. Rather, you should be happy to receive mature and reasoned advice from the members. It is not difficult for an MNC to take action to the extent of removing someone from their post or service, but this action would come at a cost to the company.

For example, if action is taken against the said union leader and he creates a ruckus on the shop floor, resulting in production being stopped for some hours, it is possible that with the intervention of higher management or a conciliatory authority, the matter could be resolved. However, consider the cost of such a resolution and ultimately who the loser is.

You must understand that as HR personnel, when we begin our career, we have to be prepared to face people's wrath and should never resort to displaying strength. A tactful handling of the situation always yields better results.

Seven Basic Management Tools

I am sure that during your college days, you must have read about the Seven Basic Management Tools, which cover:
(i) Man (HR),
(ii) Material (basic ingredient in management),
(iii) Machines (basic tools),
(iv) Money (capital),
(v) Method (the art of doing),
(vi) Management (functions of management), and
(vii) Moral Values (the way business is conducted).

The Man (HR) holds the first position, indicating its importance, without which no business can start or function.

I appreciated the mature advice given by Sh VK Sajan, where he mentioned that one should not take such incidents personally. He rightly pointed out that union leaders sometimes resort to various tactics, including abusing officers, to get their work done. It is also observed that union leaders may fight with management during working hours to show their members, and after work, they socialize and gossip together.

Best regards,
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011

I think the questioner has narrated the incident from the perspective of the complainant. Without knowing what has actually happened contextually—i.e., not only the statement "being a lady, you better behave like a lady" (of course, it is my own script developed on the questioner's statement) alleged to have been made by the Union Leader straight to the Lady HR during the course of their discussion on a common issue—but also the context, the HR Lady's last verbal reaction that provoked the union leader to say so, and whether he is an employee or outside leader and his age—it is very difficult to suggest the remedial course.

Some years ago, when I was holding conciliation talks as an Asst. Commissioner on a strike issue, a lady IR Consultant in her late 30s (interestingly a former M.L.A of a political party diagonally opposed to the political party's labor wing to which the striking union was affiliated) represented the management. The chief negotiator representing the union, a temperamental person though he was in his late 70s, was objecting to her appearance right from the beginning. I overruled his objection on the ground that she was an office-bearer of the Employers Association in which the management was a member.

In the last conciliation before me, the lady, in her excess of enthusiasm to make a point, quoted an old VERNACULAR adage mocking the role of a priest of a particular religion sanctioning divorce. Unfortunately, the union leader belonged to that religion. Immediately, in a bit of rage, the union leader shouted back at her that no virtuous lady would quote such a disapproving example in a conciliation forum and walked out with the workmen.

The next day, the lady faxed a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner against me, stating that I miserably failed to control the union leader and asked him to transfer the case to someone else. My Deputy Commissioner was a nice man and had confidence in my conciliatory skills. He called me to his chamber and coolly asked what had happened. After narrating the episode, I told him, "Sir, a word and a stone, once thrown, cannot be called back. When I suggested an alternative to end the strike, it was the lady who suddenly provoked by quoting such a disapproving adage without saying 'yes' or 'no,' and the other gentleman responded to it in an equally disapproving manner. Now I understand that I lost the confidence of the management and therefore consider transferring the dispute to someone else as desired by the management."

Of course, later the dispute reached its natural resolution in the elimination of the union with the workmen settling their accounts. We should understand that most of the union people cling to the child's state of mind because of their pre-judgment that the management is always exploitative. So, an HR Executive should be in general very cautious in his/her verbal communication. Particularly, across the table, he/she should not give room for one-to-one arguments. So, I ENDORSE the views of Sajan and others in this regard.

Please don't ignore this. This is a direct threat to an HR person. She should escalate this issue to upper management and ask for an apology or any other preventive steps against this incident. The company should have safety measures for such incidents. Please do whatever is appropriate according to you and after thinking in detail, but do not ignore this.

I have a different opinion on this. Arriving at any decision without knowing the context could be misleading. I will make one assumption here (please note that I am not saying that this would have happened). If the lady becomes aggressive and grabs a guy's collar, and in this context, the guy utters these words, "you are a lady, behave as a lady," realizing that he cannot reciprocate in the same way as the lady did because she is a woman, then I think all the people who have given their comments here that it should not be tolerated will change their opinion.

So, my opinion is the tone, context, opponents' behavior, body language, everything matters. The person who posted this question should elaborate on all these contexts.

Actually, I didn't mean that the suggestion to take stern action against the Union representative for his overt threat is wrong. In industrial relations, there are no right or wrong decisions, but certainly, there are appropriate and inappropriate decisions. In this esteemed Forum, while answering questions, what the respondents do is just brainstorming. My point is that a wordy altercation that arose from a bit of instantaneous bad temperament and inability should not be blown out of proportion so as to escalate further.

Example of Violence in Industrial Relations

Another real example of violence in the line you indicated: Some 3 or 4 years ago, a young D.G.M (HR) of a Manufacturing Company in Tamil Nadu, having a total workforce of over 3000 people in its principal unit, was brutally attacked within the premises, that too during the course of negotiations by a group of angry workmen belonging to an unrecognized union and lost his life. For what? Nothing personal against him, and he took up that job just 4 or 5 months back then. But it is said that on the very day of his assuming office, the CEO, pointing to the failures of his predecessors, firmly insisted that he should deal with the dissident union in such a manner that it dissipates in a short period. Imagine how much mental pressure he would have had! The net result would have been that he might have undermined his counseling role to both the Management and the union and simply tried to ensure implementation as directed, which resulted in the loss of employment of some workmen belonging to that particular union and ultimately in the loss of his own life. The irony is that the union was recognized by the management subsequently and cordiality restored now. So, the HR forerunner should realize that he is a buffer between the management and the workmen and try to be dispassionate to the extent possible to avert anything individual against him.

Dear all,

Really valuable views you all shared on this context. I just want to ask a few queries:

Potential Consequences of Ignoring Misbehavior

What if she doesn't complain and ignores this, causing the union leader to become more confident, leading to potential misbehavior in a different manner next time?

Risks of Retaliation After Complaining

What if she complains and a warning letter or any action is taken against the union leader, but later, someday, he seeks revenge, which can manifest in various ways, especially in the case of females (such as rape, physical harm, mental torture, or targeting her family)?

I completely agree with Bhandhavi R. This seems to be one-sided communication. Many of you have sided with the HR lady, assuming that union leaders are generally the ones misbehaving. What if, during an argument, something she said triggered his anger?

I would like to request the person who initiated this post, as she is an HR person, to join the discussion in detail. Alternatively, if you could discuss on her behalf, that would be appreciated. The assumptions being made by all the senior HR individuals here are providing valuable insights for everyone. We are all here to learn how to handle such issues in the early phases of our HR careers.

Regards,

Please report (verbally warning) by Mr./Shri./........ to your Reporting Manager, marking Cc. to the Factory Manager & HR Dept/Personal File. Take a received copy from the union/s and file it in the personal file of the person/leader.

Please understand it is the image of the company/management, and you are the face of management for the union/s. Therefore, they cannot dictate in this way, whether you are male or female. It is the company that has appointed you to deal with them, not the union/s.

This will send a clear message to the union/s from the management that nobody is above the laws/standing order.

Reporting in writing will create a file for future courses of action, which is good for management.

Make sure your seniors stand for you to support.

If the union/s are mature, they will understand and submit their representation.

But don't forget to behave with them properly as long as you are an employee.

Regards, PS

I would like to thank Mr. Uma Kanthan for his valuable suggestion and sharing valuable feedback. I want to share something boldly and loudly. First, I admit the Indian education system is full of errors; that's why a person who deserves 90% gets 40%, and vice versa.

The reason I shared this information is that I feel some people here possess half knowledge. For your information, half knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge.

Those who are providing many dialogues about laws, HR, accounts, audits, etc., might have forgotten that in India, maximum lawyers can't afford their chamber. We call them "Under the tree lawyer - Jokes apart." My point is that becoming a lawyer, HR manager, CA, or CS is not harmful. However, what is harmful is becoming a judge and providing judgment with half knowledge of management, law, and accounts!

Neutrality in Judgment

Firstly, management is not always right, and the same is true with a Trade Union leader. It's better to be neutral while judging a situation. Some important points to consider are:

1. Mrs./Miss X may be an HR leader who went for a negotiation, but a company registered under the Companies Act 1956 or Companies Act 2013, or a body corporate is not above the law.

2. Mrs./Miss X may have gone for negotiation with the Trade Union; she may represent management or the company. This does not certify that she will always be innocent. Just because she is female, we should not automatically assume everything she says is true and that the Trade Union leader is a liar.

3. Asking someone to stop and act like a female by a Trade Union leader is not a crime. We must understand the circumstances under which this conversation happened. If the Trade Union leader is not comfortable speaking with a female HR, then the Trade Union must be given a chance to speak with a male HR of equivalent authority.

4. Even if the Trade Union leader is guilty, management has no right to act beyond the scope of the law and give a legal verdict.

Gender Bias in HR Hiring

My friend, why are we not accepting the truth that management prefers to hire females in the HR domain compared to males, as they want to save themselves? We are in the 21st century, claiming that men and women are equal. However, if an employee or laborer faces a grievance and wishes to speak with HR, they must be polite with the female HR. Otherwise, management or HR itself tries to attract sympathy from the public because she is an HR.

Management knows very well that even if they are involved in forgery or fraudulent activities, the public can't misbehave or show anger if the HR is female - a sympathy issue. Thus, management saves themselves during the heat of the moment. If someone challenges or does not wish to speak with a female HR, still, management plays immoral tactics, especially with Trade Unions via female HR, who uses her femininity fruitfully during negotiations.

We all know why management prefers female employees in the HR domain, yet we remain silent. Because Indians are still bonded labor! These days, management doesn't hesitate to state in sourcing ads that they only want females. Why this discrimination? We all know the strategies of management behind this, but we still have to remain silent. My friend, those good old days of private companies are coming to an end. Enough of Sharada and Stayam, we don't want more. Those who are true managers and a bit educated would have understood what I mean to say.

Case Studies

I have one simple question. As an employee of a company involved in forgery, if I shout to protect my rights publicly, am I a criminal? HR, as usual, will try their best to save the management to protect their job. If in anger I say, "Being a lady, you should shut up and act like a lady," am I a criminal? I can't directly say to that female HR, "Are you a harlot of MD?" as the public will side with the HR due to public sympathy for her being a female.

Now, who is the criminal, and where does the fault lie? Why do companies hesitate to hire male employees in the HR domain compared to females?

So, what do you all suggest? From today, should we not follow the laws of the land because we must respect female HR, treat her as a queen, even if she acts like a snake, fraud, or criminal? Without understanding the situation, should we start giving judgments based on pre-conceived notions? Should we lean more towards females than males?

Then let's stop listening, stop probing, and start giving judgments based on sympathy.

Regards,
Sovik B

That's seriously sexist and a disgusting remark. This remark clearly has a sexual overtone to it, and the Complaints Committee not taking any action is downright sad and disappointing. Thankfully, in our organization, we don't let go of such people easily. Strict actions have been taken in the past.

Addressing the Union Leader's Remark

There is a threatening element in the union leader's remark. There may be many views, but the most practical approach is to ignore the remark as showmanship, rather than aggravate the issue. Normally, union leaders are very friendly in private discussions, and she can inform him that the language and intent can be easily misinterpreted by others.

Regards,
Sekar

One of my female colleagues has a friend who works in HR at an MNC company that has had a union for the last 5 years. She is one of the senior employees there. Due to some salary issues, she had an argument with the Union Leader, and during the argument, the Union Leader threatened her by saying, "you are a lady, behave like one," which left her very disappointed. Please suggest what steps she should take against him as per the law.

Dear Amar, if she is considering legal action against the person, advise her to lodge a complaint with higher officials. Recommend forming a committee to conduct an inquiry. Ensure the committee includes a lawyer and that at least 50% of the committee members are females. Let the committee decide on the best and safest course of action. Make sure you escalate based on valid and truthful reasons.

Regards,

My suggestion would be to ask the concerned union leader to give a presentation on the topic "You are a lady, be like a lady," and request him to elaborate on a serious note. Video shoot his presentation and then ask the lady in question to explain her reasons and point of view. Both of them should deliver their presentations politely and refrain from using any foul language. It is important to bear in mind to reconcile them and ensure they uphold their responsibilities to the company. Avoid resorting to any legal action; instead, aim to resolve this matter amicably and professionally.

Regards,
Ashwin

I would agree with some of my colleagues here who have mentioned that the case described is only a one-sided version, and it is very important to know both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion. Also, legal action is too extreme a measure, and yes, it may provoke the said Union Leader to cause more harm in terms of physical attack, attack on family, etc., towards the said HR Lady.

So, being completely neutral, I would suggest that before resorting to legal action, let a senior official/member of management talk to the said Union Leader. Of course, "How" the message is conveyed is more important than "What" message is conveyed. If the dialogue was only a matter of "heat of the moment" and this was a first such offense of the said Union Leader, he may be relieved with rebuking and an apology to the Lady. For a second or third offense of such misbehavior, a warning letter can be issued, and the matter can be handled more sternly. But legal action/chargesheet should be taken if the said Union Leader has been committing such misbehavior a lot. Also, it is important to note the definition of misbehavior in the company's Code of Conduct and Sexual Harassment Policy.

It is true that Union Leaders do resort to actions that would show off their power in front of the workers, but it is also to be noted that repeated such behavior should not be tolerated as it only gives an impression that such behavior is acceptable by the management. It is important to protect the respect of the management staff, both male and female. The comment made in this case was a sexist comment, and it should be communicated to the said Union Leader that such remarks, made in any context whatsoever, are not acceptable.