Forced to Resign for Speaking Up: What Can HR Professionals Do in Unjust Workplaces?

I would like to know a few things. If someone can reply, please do so. If someone is forced to resign not because of any fault of their own but because they, as an HR person, raised their voice for justice in a particular company where there are many anomalies in the application of rules and the labor department is solely focused on money, kindly suggest what actions, as an HR professional, you may take other than sacrificing your job.

Understanding HR's Role in Management

Management should first understand what HR is trying to convey. If HR raises its voice, it is for the management's benefit and growth, not for personal savings. You can talk to your management again with all the reports to explain the purpose for which you have raised your voice and clarify the benefits. Even after explaining the benefits, if they insist that you resign, there is no option but to comply.

Raising Concerns as an HR Professional

Raising your voice as an HR professional for a management cause is not a reasonable cause for termination. There is no need to resign. Please specify the nature of your organization and the state in which you are working.

Thanks,
Sushil

Role of HR in Employee Justice and Company Interests

It 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 the Factories Act. This is the reason why the welfare officer rules are there, and they cannot 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 long-term loyalty to the firm. The most important function is to insulate the company from loss on account of labor disruption.

So first, get your job and purpose clear.

If you feel the company is doing something wrong, you need to analyze 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 done, you should try and convince the management of the benefits of being compliant, fair, and in line with best practices.

If you cannot convince, then you need to do what the management wants you to do, short of unethical action (e.g., 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 expectations and ethics.

From what I understand of the post, it's not the settlement of a grievance 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 industrial peace and being knowledgeable in the subject, HR often raises points before the management about where their policy is wrong and how it can affect the long-term effectiveness of the organization. However, HR cannot fight for the justice of workmen. That is what the union is there for, and that is what the welfare officers are appointed for. Unless, of course, the action is so blatantly 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 if they are fighting for justice (as different from bringing to management's notice what is wrong and suggesting that they should change).

You are right that HR is there to save the interest of the company by maintaining discipline, attrition, and so on. However, you also mentioned that HR is there to sort out long-term gain if a company is not looking after its own employees and does not have an ethical approach. How will it achieve long-term gain where human assets are the most important assets of any organization, and HR is there to look after them?

Clarifying the Main Issue

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 favor of employees?
- Is it the anomalies in the implementation of rules/laws and chasing by the labor department?
- Is it the termination of HR for raising its voice for employees?

First of all, the issue has to be clear.

The Role of HR

In my opinion, the role of the HR department 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 the concerns of employees to Management. A union comes up when employees are aggrieved and Management fails to look after employees.

HR has to act keeping in view the real issue.

Addressing Anomalies in Labor Laws

If the real issue is anomalies in the implementation of labor laws/rules and consequent trouble by the labor department, then HR should study the anomalies and their impact on the company/business and sensitize the management accordingly.

Handling Injustice with Employees

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 is this Management's style and strategy of running the company? Are employees coming to HR with grievances, or has HR 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.

Communicating with Management

If HR acts after due diligence of the matter and communicates with the Management in a responsible and tactful manner, I do not think an HR person will be terminated for putting the issues on the table.

If none of these approaches is workable, then you may be in the wrong place and should look for a company where alignment of your personality with the company culture is possible.

All the best to you.

Regards,
Indu Wadhwa
Founder & Principal Consultant
Aspiring People
Mobile: [Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
Email: [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
Website: www.aspiringpeople.in

The Role of HR in Company Processes

What I feel is that his job is to do his job properly. In all cases, HRs are not the decision-makers but the proposers. He should work closely with the company's legal team, and any anomaly towards implementation should be formally presented before the management as prospective exposure for the company and its impact on the company, both from a legal and financial point of view. If such a presentation fails to grab the attention of the management, then HR has no way available other than to implement the faulty process.

In my opinion, HRs are the key persons between the management and the staff. Hence, doing anything other than his job means he is not doing it properly. In case of any wrongdoing done by the management, then it should be answerable before the court. HR is in no way responsible to do justice but to make the best use of any worst situation. However, that's what I feel.

Regards

HR Manager's Responsibility and Legal Consequences

The HR manager is responsible for compliance with various labor laws. If, at the behest of an employer, they make false entries in the register of employees and show a lesser number of employees to benefit the employer and cause losses to employees, they are responsible for facing prosecution. For example, under Section 14 of the EPF Act, the words "whoever" makes false representation will be liable for imprisonment for one year. Thus, the HR manager, being responsible for finalizing the list of covered employees, will have to face the consequences.

Similarly, under the Shops and Establishment Acts, if they make false entries in registers, they will be prosecuted. For instance, under the Bombay and Delhi Acts, the words used are "manager" and "person," respectively, for such provisions. The law does not provide them protection to claim that the employer forced them to do so. Neither under the IPC can such a defense be taken.

In today's era of Right to Information (RTI), things cannot remain hidden regarding true affairs. An aggrieved employee will, someday, fight for their rights, and then only will the manager be caught. In such a situation, if the HR wants to raise their voice for justice or protect their position or the interests of management, sacrificing their job is not necessary because in some State Shops and Establishment Acts, such termination will be set aside.

Thanks,

Regards,
Sushil

In continuation of my above post of 16th Feb 2015, which has unfortunately been converted into Anonymous and the next reply is not visible to me, I wish to add that under sections 76 to 79, IPC, it is no defense to carry out unlawful orders of one's superior, vide Rathi v State (CBI) decided by Delhi High Court on 18th September 2009. Thus, HR should not carry out illegal and unlawful directions of superiors which may later entail him into prosecution even if he has left the company.

Thanks,
Regards

Forced Resignation: Legal Implications

It is learned that a query intended to know the ruling about forced resignation. It is settled that forced resignation is illegal termination, but it has to be pleaded and proved that the resignation was forced because of undue influence, force, coercion, etc. Please see the decision in The Management of Madura Coats vs. Presiding Officer decided in 2010.

Thanks,
Sushil

Harassment by the Previous Employer After Leaving the Job

Further in the thread "Harassment by the previous employer after leaving the job," I have extracted the relevant passages of an Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v. S.M. Chopra, decided in 1999. In the said case, it was proven how resignation was extracted by coercion.

Thanks,
Sushil

Thank you for acknowledging new thoughts. I have tried to illustrate how, in real practice, an innocent HR professional can be put in dangerous situations that leave a lasting scar. Every action should be well thought out, considering its pros and cons; otherwise, experts should be consulted.

Never mind the original thread because, in pursuing this discussion, we are given the opportunity to research these issues and perspectives for the benefit of mankind.

Thank you,
Sushil

I think many of us write on the forum in the hope that someone will read the thread later and benefit from the details we post. Unfortunately, I find that most people simply post again instead of trying to read the earlier threads.

With regard to the origin of the post, I find that he wrote the words - raising voice for justice, not pointing out compliance issues to the board. When you point out compliance matters, refuse to sign, or object to being asked to sign wrong documents, it would be different. It would not be a question of raising voice for justice. However, your points are important to anybody working in HR, and that has not changed.

The use of words in the original post by him, where he raised points regarding justice and the labor department, suggests that the enforcement machinery is prioritizing money over true facts. His protest for justice implies that the system may not be considering the genuine issues at hand and may be influenced by monetary concerns. The concept of justice encompasses ensuring that the names of excluded individuals, who are entitled to benefits under the law, are included. It also involves safeguarding his interests.

Thanks,
Sushil

Clarification Needed on Injustice and Termination

First of all, it is not clear what injustice happened. To whom? Was it an employee or HR itself?

Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "raised voice"? What actions did you take that resulted in your termination?

Everyone is responding only considering that some injustice happened and a voice was raised. However, without clarity on the entire situation, no one can provide proper and exact advice on it.

In this site, we should not insist on revealing the identity of a querist, whether they are the victim themselves or speaking on behalf of another. Particularly, we must keep in mind that if they are an HR professional, they are a white-collar employee. This category does not easily disclose the intricacies of a complaint because this forum is not meant to adjudicate issues but to provide broad guidelines. This way, the querist can make an appropriate decision after we offer any assistance. The querist has clearly stated that there are anomalies in rule applications and that the labor department is solely focused on money. A reasonable person can deduce the real problem behind the scenes. We cannot expect this category of person to reveal minute violations or anomalies, especially when considering the following words.

The following words in the query are extracted: “voice for justice, in the particular company. There are lots of anomalies in the rules applications, and the labor department is just behind money.”

Sometimes, advice is sought on limited issues and not on the entire gamut of the scenario. We should not hesitate to help, except on our terms, subject to revealing everything. The narration of the whole scenario will ultimately have to be done by a querist before an advocate or court. We are not adjudicators.

Thanks

Sushil