#ponytailgate

PONYTAILGATE – AN EMPLOYER’S PERSPECTIVE (No politics)

The media is ‘a flutter’ this week with the news that John Key acted inappropriately with a member of staff at one of his local cafés.

Whilst much of the information has yet to be verified, we do have the waitress’s account of events (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/22/exclusive-the-prime-minister-and-the-waitress/) and can examine the implications to an employer caught up in this media storm.

The waitress herself has used the word ‘bullying’ in her account and this is important because this is how she felt. What constitutes bullying can be very subjective however, often the common denominator in deciding whether someone was bullied is how it made them ‘feel’ at the time.

In recognising this as a problem in the work place and after identifying that bullying can lead to much bigger issues for both an employer and employee if left unaddressed, WorkSafe New Zealand issued new guidelines last year for bullying in the workplace. These can be viewed at http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/all-guidance-items/bullying-guidelines.

This new set of guidelines now obligates employers to not only resolve any bullying complaints but also to provide reasonable processes and practices to prevent such an event from recurring.

So, aside from the political implications for John Key, what does this mean for the Employer involved?

THE WAITRESS’S STORY

The waitress works in a café that is regularly frequented by Prime Minister, John Key. During his visits there he paid the waitress some unwanted attention by frequently tugging on her ponytail. She did not enjoy this attention and felt that he seemed to think it was a game despite her trying to indicate that she was not happy about it. He was usually accompanied by both his wife and their security detail on these visits and the waitress did not feel it appropriate or professional in the first instance to create a scene in front of him, his entourage, her colleagues and any other customers.

Despite attempting to avoid him when he came in, he actively sought her out which made her feel tormented and caused her to cry after encounters with him on several occasions. The waitress said she tried to indicate to Mr Key that she did not enjoy this behaviour by initially ignoring it and not engaging with him. From the 28th of February her account of events lists three further encounters where Mr Key was made verbally aware that his behaviour was not acceptable and these sources include the waitress, his wife and a Manager at the café.

Despite this, Mr Key’s behaviour continued until she actually threatened to hit him. Seven months after this behaviour started, Mr Key apologised by taking her two bottles of wine from his own personal vintage. This ‘apology’ resulted in the waitress feeling more offended at his attitude about his behaviour which she felt, despite seven months of personal torment for her, he seemed to think was trivial.

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION

A member of staff is feeling bullied and tormented by a customer and has been unable to deal with the situation. Although she had the right to escalate this to management, she appears to have mistakenly assumed that it was her responsibility to resolve the situation which indicates a lack of training for her.

No guidance or tangible support appears to have been forthcoming from at least one Manager who was aware of the situation. This seems to indicate a lack of training, process or policy in general around the handling of inappropriate customer behaviour OR staff were unsure if there were ‘exceptions’ to any of the existing policies. (This is understandable given the high-profile of the customer.)

We don’t know if she did but, It is common for staff members to have concerns over their job security, especially if they think there will be repercussions for identifying such a high profile customer in what some might see as a minor complaint. (Remember, it’s about how the waitress was made to feel at the time.)

As an employee, it is reasonable to expect a Manager or Employer to protect subordinate staff from this sort of behaviour by a customer. For whatever reason, in this case, the business seems to have failed to provide adequate protection for a member of staff.

EMPLOYER OBLIGATIONS

Although the owners of the café claim that they were unaware of the situation until very recently, as an employer, they still have a case to answer. An employer has a legal obligation to provide a safe and comfortable work environment for staff. In this instance a staff member felt bullied and uncomfortable over a seven month period.

We can only surmise that a policy did not exist for dealing with customer harassment or, it was unclear. Alternatively the Manager may have lacked training to deal with the situation or was simply not ‘empowered’ to deal with it. It’s possible the Manager may also may have had job security concerns in the event they were to unilaterally admonish or even evict such a high profile customer.

Any uncertainty a Manager might experience in this particular situation should be clarified by a robust harassment and communication process. This can allow for information to be communicated to the owners so that a decision on any action can be approved before being taken. That this behaviour continued over seven months is concerning as it shows a lack of communication between the operational and strategic parts of the business.

Establishing the facts and constructive criticism is the first step to resolving this. The focus for the business needs to be resolving the situation and a full review of all relevant processes to ensure that no other staff member should find themselves in this type of position again.

RESOLVING THE SITUATION.

It’s important to remember that the waitress has done nothing wrong here. Ideally it would have been great if she had felt able to communicate the level of her distress earlier however, her statement does indicate that at some point, someone in management did become aware.

A common issue with bullying is that the victim feels powerless because they feel they will not be taken seriously. It doesn’t appear that anyone else seemed to take it particularly seriously so it’s not surprising that the waitress may have had doubts about escalating the problem earlier.

The waitress is mistaken in her assumption that resolving the situation was solely her responsibility however, she appears to have received no indication from management or anyone else that she would be supported if she did.

To resolve a situation like this I would suggest that an immediate meeting be set up between the employee and management. A support person for the employee should be included so that the employee feels fully supported during this meeting. It should be made clear to the employee from the beginning that you know they have done nothing wrong.

During this discussion you need to find out exactly what the problem is and agree what is needed for the employee to feel it is resolved satisfactorily. Usually this is typically a positive and amicable conversation as the employee feels listened to and you will often become aware of small operational glitches in the running of your business. Solutions in this case may involve a warning for the customer, developing more customer exclusion zones for staff or even excluding problem customers from the premises.

Given the number of times the waitress felt ‘assaulted’ even after communicating that the behaviour was a problem, it may be appropriate to support the employee through an official assault complaint against the offender.

In extreme cases where the employee has been caused further hurt and humiliation by events that could have been dealt with more effectively by management, it is reasonable to consider paid compensation to an employee. Under certain circumstances this option can be less emotionally stressful for all parties and more cost effective than being taken to mediation or through the employment courts. Settlements can be ratified as full and final and can remain confidential as part of the agreement.

In this case the employer did fail to make the employee feel safe for seven months. Acknowledging responsibility and resolving the issue is the best PR you can receive from this situation.

PREVENTION

Once you clearly understand the issues and have resolved the problem for your staff member, it’s time to look at how it occurred in the first place.

In this situation, it would have been great if the waitress had brought it to management’s attention straight away but, from the waitresses account, the bullying appears to escalate in intensity as it persists. This indicates that there needs to be a clearer policy for staff around dealing with customers who are over-familiar and identifying who staff can speak to for support and advice.

Staff training would be beneficial as you’re less likely to find this sort of thing being an issue if staff members are aware of their rights and the accepted practice for dealing with harassment. Keeping a staff handbook on the premises for staff to refer to is a great way to ensure the information is documented and available.

Whilst it appears that management must have known of the harassment, this could indicate that they may not have understood the depth of feeling the waitress had for Mr Key’s unwanted attention. Regular chats with staff can highlight all sorts of operational aspects of the business including any ‘house’ issues such as, the speed of table clearing, café promotions, menu changes, staff rosters and of course, harassment issues. There really is no excuse for this harassment to have happened for such a prolonged period of time.

Regularly set time aside to talk to your staff so you can let them know about any issues or expectations you have for staff members and give them the opportunity to talk to you about things that they find important. If the café owners had known what was going on, it’s possible this could have been avoided.

MOVING ON

Whatever the political outcome of this situation, the café involved is now infamous. Ultimately, every employer has an obligation to keep their staff safe and in this case there was a failure to do so. When your business rockets into the spotlight, how you react can have far-reaching effects both now and in the future.

This unwanted attention has been caused by a third party however, it has highlighted some communication and training issues within this café business. My advice is to take the opportunity to fix or improve these areas of your business rather than deny there is a problem and allow the attention to go back to the person who is really the cause of this whole saga.

For more information or advice on employer and employee issues, call Cherilyn at EASI NZ on 021 665 013 or email [email protected]

UPDATE:

Since writing this, the owners of the café, Hip Group, have subsequently been implicated in an allegation involving possibly misleading our waitress to unwittingly talk to a journalist. Whilst we wait for more of the facts to come out, keep your eyes peeled for Ponytail-Gate 2 and why mis-handling an employment situation can have damaging results on your business!

I shied away from talking to media about my daughter’s experience of the John Key hair thing because she didn’t want me to, and I can’t see any good coming of it.

These political events are moments for people with agendas to make their points. My fascination is interpreting those agendas and working out how to deal with them in politics. But I also have an agenda; modern politicians’ paternalistic or dismissive attitudes toward voters. I therefore don’t read sexism or any other -ism into John Key’s touchiness. I share a view which is being expressed outside of the twitterati, that in the cafe he was being dorky. But fortunately, being viewed by someone else as dorky is not a crime. We would have all spent time in jail.

That said, we don’t like our politicians to be dorks. My favourite example is  Geoffrey Palmer - Dork#1 in recent political history.

Politicians have got to be one of us, but simultaneously better than us. They have to know what life is like for ordinary people, but also be someone we can trust to make momentous decisions.

That’s a tough gig. Key’s common touch and a level of competence has allowed the public to forgive those moments when he thought too much of himself and crossed the line into embarrassing.

The third term is the downfall of politicians because they lose their way - power fuzzes the lines between the present and the core strengths that got them into power in the first place.

The ponytail incident, and the casualness of the physical closeness with the public, suggests Key has also lost his way.