Consensual Relationship Agreements
BUS 520
April 3, 2012

Abstract
This report will examine the issue of consensual relationship agreements (CRA), also known as love contracts, within the workplace. It will define what a CRA is, and argue for the use of CRAs in the workplace and argue against the use of CRAs in the workplace. It will also address the ethical principles involved in the use of CRAs and offer another option to CRAs that would address workplace romances.

Consensual Relationship Agreements or CRAs are known to some people as love contracts. Lawyers may define it as a liability of intimacy, and a U.S Military member will be familiar with the term PDA or Public Display of Affection. Regardless of which sector a person is employed, they may be subject to a company's policy on dating or consensually becoming involved in romantic relationships with other employees in their workplace. We can best define CRA's as a document, presented by human resources, and signed voluntarily by both employees, acknowledging a "consensual" relationship. This contract is to specifically state in writing, that a romantic relationship will not interfere with job performance, and reiterates the principles of the company's harassment policy. The agreement will require arbitration rather than a harassment grievance if for any reason the relationship ends, which protects the employer of any liability of any claim being presented at a later date, for unwelcomed sexual harassment. "According to a 2007 study by SnagAJob.com, 72% of men and 60% of women are interested in a coworker" (Delman 2012). A civil service employee working in a government position is subject to a "just cause" termination policy and human resource leaders must present any no dating policy with great care. Most employees in the government sector are constantly expected to participate in going away luncheons, retirement gatherings, promotion parties and many other off base activities that must clearly be defined as to when an event is work related and when it could be construed as dating. If not, the government may be accused of invasion of privacy. The military also clearly states if a policy is zero tolerance, mandatory or highly recommended. This is why it is important for an employer to define what dating is. Base Commanders make it clear that fraternization between officers and enlisted is unacceptable and dating is not allowed. There are however, exceptions to this policy. Many times both parties in a relationship are enlisted, and one earns a commission and now outranks the other. If the couple is married, then they would be required to be assigned to separate workplaces. Most companies prohibit any personal relationships between managers or supervisors and their subordinates. Private sector employees receive protection from invasions of privacy under state legislation and common law. Some people would argue that there are advantages to dating a co-worker. A couple could spend more time together at work, eating lunch and attending work related functions together. As long as they both agree to conduct themselves professionally, adheres to the company harassment policy and does not create a condition where favoritism could become an issue, then it could be acceptable. Could this actually increase moral and productivity? Well, many believe it does and if a CRA is in place and agreed by both parties, it could be a way to increase employee satisfaction. After all, how employees spend their personal time off is of no concern to employers, and asking employees to define the meaning of their relationships outside of the work environment can be viewed as too much information! But what if a relationship takes several months or even years to develop? At what point does a company have the right to decide to interfere? Dating a co-worker can cause moral problems with other workers and can cause compromising situations for the company. And it can also be argued that a company that is paying the salary, should have the right to decide what they will or will not allow in their workplace. "If a sexual relationship is coerced, it may constitute implicit "quid pro quo" harassment for other employees" (Grossman, 2005). Quid pro quo harassment occurs when a supervisor demands sexual favors in exchange for an employee's gaining job benefits or avoiding adverse employment actions, and it is a clear and serious violation.

There are ethical implications of not having a clear policy in place regarding consensual relationships. Two married people my start a relationship at work, and keep it a secret. "After a workplace romance fails, the employee often claims to have been pressured into the relationship" (Hellriegel, 2011 pg. 65). But to be clear, a CRA must be understood and agreed to, so it is not considered an invasion of privacy. Whether or not a CRA is used, it can be argued that any policy should protect the greatest number of employees, therefore should serve to address not only those that become emotionally involved, but should also be sensitive to how such actions of a few, affects all employees. One alternative to a CRA would be to simply have a zero tolerance policy on dating in the workplace. This would allow an employer to rightfully terminate any employee who deviates from this rule without any repercussions or liability if a relationship ends on bad terms. There will always be romantic relationships between employees in the workplace. It is how we as leaders, balance our relationships with our employees, with the priorities of our business, that will determine how we treat these issues as they occur. Perhaps it starts with our hiring standards? Or maybe because we are humans, it is just a fact of life that we accept, knowing it will happen regardless of any policy. When dealing with conflict, some things can be eliminated, while others must be managed.

References
Delman, G. (2012, May 28). All Work and No Play?: Pros and Cons of Work Relationships Retrieved July 25, 2012, from hercampus.com: http://www.hercampus.com/love/all-work-and-no-play-pros-and-cons-work-relationships
Grossman, J. (2005, July 29). Can Consensual Workplace Sex Create a Hostile Environment? Retrieved July 25, 2012, from CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/29/grossman.workplace/index.html?iref=allsearch
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2011). Organizational Behavior: 2011 custom edition (13th ed.) Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.