Check out our blog for the latest employee relations and workplace investigations insights, trends, and news. From the MeToo movement to best practices and personal anecdotes from the field, the HR Acuity blog is here to help you stay in the know on all things employee relations. The Waltons are also famous for another reason-the explicit nepotism , or favoritism of family or friends-which pervades the upper echelon management. Could it be argued that there is a logic to protecting a family business or family-owned enterprise by populating the upper management ranks with trusted family and friends? However, the consequences of nepotism in the workplace are vast and far outweigh the benefits, if any. The repercussions of nepotism in the workplace are sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle, but always serious.
Summarized below are sample Commission cases that address a number of common family member scenarios.
Nepotism and Its Dangers in the Workplace
It should be noted that these cases were decided prior to the March Nepotism amendment. Family Members Employed by the Same Agency. In Case No.
The Appeal Tribunal reviews determinations of the Division of Employment Security that are appealed by an aggrieved or dissatisfied claimant. The three-member Board of Review decides appeals of decisions issued by the Appeal Tribunal. The Chief did not decide cases; her job duties consisted of devising strategy and creating administrative policies for the Appeal Tribunal. The Board adopted a policy precluding the Member from reviewing or having any connection with decisions issued by the Chief on those rare occasions when it was necessary for the Chief to conduct a hearing and function as an Appeals Examiner.
The Commission concurred with the Deputy Attorney General who represented the Board that the recusal policy in place at the Board was a sufficient mechanism to avoid a conflict situation.
This situation was reviewed under the application of section 23 e 4 of the Conflicts Law which prohibits State employees from acting in their official capacity in a matter wherein they have a direct or indirect personal financial interest that might reasonably be expected to impair their objectivity or independence of judgment.
Meezaan & Alaviaa Jaaferi on Javed Jaaferi, their bond, nepotism, dating & online trolls - Bhai Dooj
The Commission determined that one spouse has a direct personal financial interest in the salary and continued employment of the other spouse and thus should not be in a position to provide direct supervision or to take personnel actions such as performance evaluations and salary increases. The Commission advised the agency to take administrative action to resolve the conflict situation, and the agency transferred one of the spouses out of the work unit.
The Commission reviewed the specifics of this particular situation and noted that the Manager did not directly supervise his cousins, complete their PARS or sign their time sheets. Thus, it was unlikely there could be an appearance of impropriety by virtue of his cousins working in the same facility. Hiring of Family Members. Among the violations was one that the employee secured employment for his daughter with a private organization that received funding from the Department.
The employee directly monitored the organization's performance under the contract. After the employee's supervisor learned of his daughter's employment, the employee was relieved of all monitoring responsibilities.
After reviewing the various violations, the Commission concurred with the Department's findings and approved the proposed sanction. The Commission determined that the circumstances surrounding the contract were violative of section 23 e 3the unwarranted privilege section of the statute. The contract between the District and the District Manager's wife was terminated. The manager and her son resided in the same household. The Commission ordered that her son's employment with the District be terminated and that a complaint against the District Manager be prepared.
The Commission later approved a consent order in this matter. The position was never advertised to the job-seeking public and the Director did not use any of the State contractors who normally performed the services in question.
The Commission approved a consent order with the Director. The Deputy Superintendent entered into a consent order with the Commission. The Director had asked the Chief of the Bureau of Parole if he would be interested in hiring his son while a DOC employee was out on sick leave. The form was signed by the Director. Other individuals were on the certified list who ranked higher than the Director's son and were not advised of the interim position.
The Commission determined that there were indications that the State employee violated sections 23 e 3 and 7 of the Conflicts Law. The Director entered into a consent order with the Commission. The Commission determined that there were indications that the Assistant Commissioner violated sections 23 e 3 and 7 of the Conflicts Law and authorized the drafting of a complaint. In Advisory Opinion No. Because Members of the County Boards of Taxation act in a quasi-judicial capacity, the Commission was guided by cases interpreting the Canons of Judicial Ethics as applied to family member situations.
It was noted that the need for unquestionable integrity, objectivity and impartiality is just as great for quasi-judicial personnel as for judges.
If a company is denied a franchise in a municipality in favor of another company, it is the duty of the Chief Engineer to pass upon the engineering qualifications of the successful applicant. The Commission determined that it would be an appearance of a conflict if the engineer were to become involved in any way in the challenge of the subject franchise or any future action with respect to the company that employed his son.
The Member's husband was president of an advertising agency which performed public relations work for the grant recipient. The Member asked if it was necessary for the advertising agency that employed her husband to resign from the account. The Commission determined that it did not have the authority to require the private public relations firm to relinquish the account and recommended that the Member refrain from participation in discussion and voting on any matters pertaining to the grant recipient.
The Commission determined that to avoid any potential conflict or appearance of a conflict, the Administrator should in no way be involved in contracts negotiated or executed by DYFS or DHS with the company that employed his brother. Further, in his State capacity, the Administrator should not solicit any State business for nor refer any State business to his brother's employer.
Also, neither his brother nor any representatives of the company should call on the Administrator and the Administrator should have no involvement with matters pertaining to the company. The parent organization had more than 30 subsidiary companies segmented into 9 control groups. The control group with which the Director's father-in-law was affiliated had no direct relationship with the environmental company that contracted with DHM.
The Commission determined that the nexus was too remote to suggest that the Director was acting in his official capacity in a matter wherein he had a direct or indirect personal financial interest that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment.
The Commission noted the absence of any indication that the Deputy's spouse's position was offered to her for the purpose or with the intent of influencing him nor was there any evidence that the Deputy had used his position to obtain employment for his spouse with the bidder or to secure her assignment under the proposed contract. There was also no indication of any interest held by the Deputy in the bidder that would bar the contract under section 19, the contracting section of the statute.
As for the appearance of impropriety, the Commission noted that the Deputy's spouse had obtained employment with the bidder prior to their marriage and long before his appointment as Deputy and that the lack of involvement by him in bidding process matters involving the Lottery Commission, on the part of the Governor's Office, would substantially ameliorate any appearance problems.
Nepotism and Dating Policy Acknowledgement Name: Title: Agency/Org: I certify I have received, read and understand the State of Nevada Nepotism and Dating Policy as contained in NAC and NAC I understand that if I am a supervisor, in the event I become related to or involved in a datingFile Size: KB. Nepotism and Consensual Dating Relationships Last ated: February 4, Page 3 of 4. 5. No employee may influence or attempt to influence, directly or indirectly, the hiring, evaluation, setting the compensation or salary for, supervision, discipline, promotion, workFile Size: KB. Oct 10, Very few laws regulate nepotism at either the state or federal level. In fact, some states have no laws prohibiting the practice. Nevertheless, the consequences of nepotism may increase your risk of being sued for discrimination or hostile work environment. For instance, personal relationships and fraternization between coworkers often lead to.
The Commission based its advice on the assumption that he would have no duties concerning this contract or the Lottery Commission in general, such as appointment of members, which might raise impairment of objectivity issues due to his personal financial interest in his spouse's employment. The Commission also cautioned the Deputy that willful disclosure or use of information not generally available to the public received or acquired in the course of or by reason of official duties is prohibited.
The Ombudsman was generally responsible for receiving, investigating and making recommendations concerning complaints received from persons incarcerated or on parole. The Commission determined that the Ombudsman and the Department should be advised that it is not consistent with the Conflicts Law for her to have involvement as Ombudsman in handling complaints concerning Correction Officers represented by the Union while her husband served as President.
The advice was based on considerations of indirect interest, impairment of objectivity and appearance of impropriety.
The employee also recommended her husband as a consultant to a school district which received funding from the Department for a project related to the education of gifted students.
The Department determined that the manager's recommendation of her husband as a Division consultant was violative of the Conflicts Law. She was also advised that she should not implicitly or explicitly make recommendations to local districts as to consultants or programs for gifted and talented education with which she has a direct or indirect relationship.
In addition, while it was the Director's responsibility to review a physician's qualifications prior to acceptance as a CEP, her husband became a CEP four years before she became Medical Director.
The Chief's daughter received the award for academic year Inshe applied personally for the scholarship. The organization's Board of Directors questioned the propriety of awarding the scholarship to the daughter of the Chief of the BCCE and advised the Chief that the award would not be granted until the conflicts issue was resolved. The Commission determined that the Conflicts Law was violated and ordered the Chief to reimburse the organization for the amount of scholarship monies awarded to his daughter.
The Racing Commission does not regulate the selection of insurance brokers but does require that a surety bond be submitted by the track owner's insurance broker. The nominee's son provided this bond to the Racing Commission. The Commission determined that there was no conflict of interest per se; however, the nominee was cautioned to abstain from discussions and voting on any insurance matters that came before the Racing Commission.
The Commissioner had been associated with the same law firm that employed her father prior to entering State service. Here is a sample.
National Conference of State Legislatures. "Nepotism Restrictions." Accessed February 25, ResearchGate. "The effects of nepotism on human resource management: The case of three, four and five star hotels in northern Cyprus." Accessed February 25, Abstract. Journal of Management Information and Decision archotelzeeland.com: Susan M. Heathfield. Keep employees in the loop on workplace policies. Our must-haves cover everything from overtime and social media to how your firm handles harassment. Anti-nepotism and anti-fraternization policies, however, are permissible. If a personal relationship in the workplace would affect supervision, efficiency, security, or morale, an employer would have a strong argument for implementing and enforcing anti-nepotism and anti-fraternization policies.
The employment of family members can cause conflicts of interest, hurt feelings, and limit the diversity of our workforce. As such, we wish to reduce the potential conflicts of interest that can occur when family members work together.
For the purpose of this policy, a family member is defined as spouse, partner, parents, step-parents, siblings, step-siblings, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, grandparents, grandchildren, or cousins. In-laws or partner's family are also considered family.
Other non-family relationships can be considered on a case-by-case basis. When dealing with outside firms, either as vendors, clients, or service providers, these same guidelines shall apply. Your company understands that family relationships can change throughout employment. People may date and marry over the course of employment.
Human Resources will work with you, your family member, and your manager s to find a solution that doesn't violate the nepotism policy.
If you have any concerns about relationships within the business, please notify the Human Resources Department as soon as possible. Hopefully, this sample policy will help you get your nepotism guidelines in place. By doing so, you can avoid adversely affecting employee relationships and make your workplace a successful one.
1. Nepotism relegates employee performance to who you know
National Conference of State Legislatures. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences. Harvard Business Review. Succeeding at Work Human Resources. Full Bio Follow Linkedin. Follow Twitter. Read The Balance's editorial policies.
However, other reasons exist that demonstrate the importance of a nepotism policy. Nepotism Policy Sample Purpose of the Nepotism Policy The employment of family members can cause conflicts of interest, hurt feelings, and limit the diversity of our workforce.
§ What policies govern nepotism? (a) SCSEP recipients must ensure that no recipient or sub-recipient hires, and no host agency serves as a worksite for, a person who works in a SCSEP community service assignment if a member of that person's immediate family is engaged in a decision-making capacity (whether compensated or not) for that. The purpose of this policy is to establish the nepotism and fraternization policy for the City of Redlands. This policy is intended to avoid conflicts of interest between work-related and personal/family obligations; reduce favoritism or even the appearance of favoritism; prevent personal/family conflicts from affecting the workplace; and decrease the likelihood of sexual harassment and/or. Nepotism Amendment. The Conflicts Law was amended, effective March 15 , to prohibit certain relatives of certain State officials from holding particular governmental positions and also to prohibit State officials from supervising, or exercising authority with regard to personnel actions over, a relative of the State official.
Definition of Family Members For the purpose of this policy, a family member is defined as spouse, partner, parents, step-parents, siblings, step-siblings, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, grandparents, grandchildren, or cousins. Nepotism Policy No family members shall: Work in the same department or share a manager. Have any reporting relationship between them. Oversee processes that will affect a family member. For instance, HR employees may not be a business partner, employee relations manager, or compensation supervisor over any department that the family member is in.
Participate in any disciplinary or reward decision that directly affects an individual family member.
This policy shall be enforced when hiring, promoting, or transferring employees.