Employment relationship after COVID-19

Human Resource Management being essentially a people management function requires that once in a while the practitioner undertakes a bit of crystal ball gazing, wherein he or she predicts the possible reaction of individuals and groups of individuals to specific work situations.

 In that regard, the question to ask is, what will be the relationship between the employer and the employee to a return to normalcy after the COVID-19 pandemic wears out?

Both parties will pick the pieces and seek to mend the relationship.

Obviously, each party would have learnt lessons and returned with a resolve to safeguard their mutual interests and collective survival, going forward.

 Environmental health/safety

The primary concern of the parties will be health, safety and environmental issues to be considered, introduced and incorporated into the Conditions of Service (CS) or Collective Agreement (CA), as the case may be.

This may start with the running of health, safety and environmental hygiene programmes on a continuous basis.

Such programmes will cover areas like personal hygiene, environmental cleanliness, greeting etiquette, observation of and respect for individual worker’s personal space, social distancing, etc,.

Above all, workers will ask for the employment of professional Health and Safety personnel for the sake of employee health.

Safe work

 One of the key duties of the employer is the provision of a safe system of work.

This imposes on the employer an obligation to ensure that the worker is free from risk and danger, including the provision of work and appropriate raw materials, machinery, tools and equipment.

Trade unions, upon hindsight, will call for the audit of the system of work, as well as standard operating procedures, for workers’ safety.

Workers may also call for the involvement of the Factories Inspectorate, as well as the Labour Department in the inspection and approval of operating standards.

Conceivably, workers would want to call to mind actions taken by management in the course of the pandemic, the effect on their members and have an indication of the way forward.

In this regard, attention should be paid to some of the initiatives that were resorted to, including flexible working hours; working from home; granting of leave, be it part or in full; layoff measures; the closure of business and the declaration of redundancies.

Arrangements

The question both parties will ask is, “Did it work for the benefit of the business?”

 If indeed, it did, why should it not be a regular feature of the work culture? Subject to proper supervision, this will work to reduce stress on the employee and ensure appropriate work-life balance.

In the wake of the pandemic, some employers allowed workers to operate from home, relying on technology.

In most cases, work did not suffer and workers would have had the option of working from the comfort of their homes.

Formality would have been relaxed, but discipline and accountability maintained.

Could this then be incorporated into the culture of the organisation and a provision made for it in the CA?

 As a matter of conventional wisdom, workers were granted leave in the absence of work during the pandemic.

The deliberate effort would have been made to ensure that all earned leave was taken and beyond that unearned leave granted in advance.

Lockdown

Employers, during the lockdown, had to ask employees to stay away from work, as it was impossible to carry out business.

This would have taken several forms, including formal letters of suspension of the employment relationship with a promise to reengage, etc.,

The question is, will workers be prepared to forego salaries for the period of the lockdown and re-enter the employment relationship?

Will that not constitute cheating on the part of the employer? Could arrangements be made to pay lost salaries over a period of time?

If, indeed, workers were declared redundant in the face of the pandemic, were the procedures as outlined in Sections 65 and 66 of the Labour Act followed to the letter?

 If there were breaches how do we correct them after the return to normalcy?

Above all, should the formula for the payment of redundancy not be incorporated into the CBA for the avoidance of doubt in emergency situations?

Again, should the principles for selection for redundancy (FIFO/LIFO) not be captured in the CA?

In all these, one needs to be mindful of the status of the worker in the enterprise in terms of being casual, outsourced, temporary, contract or permanent.

Per Section 66 of the Labour Act, workers engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time or work, probationers and workers engaged on a casual basis are not eligible for the payment of redundancy packages.

Force majeure

The question above all questions would be, “Should force majeure be incorporated in the CBA and CA of organisations, given the fact that it is not mentioned as one of the grounds for termination of employment under the Labour Act,2003,Act 651?

It is significant to note that where the law does not specifically provide for a particular subject of interest, the parties at the negotiating table may make a provision which would be binding.

It is obvious that there could be a period of strained relations marked by suspicion followed by a period of stability, understanding and mutual trust.

Survival is the word!

The writer is the President & Fellow, Institute of HR Management Practitioners (Ghana) E-mail: kwaponge@yahoo.com;