Profession lacks legislative power to make discipline meaningful
Nearly one-half (43 per cent) of HR practitioners feel the profession needs to get tougher with discipline, according to the latest Pulse Survey.
“In my own experience, I’ve witnessed less than ethical behaviour by people with the (Certified Human Resources Professional) designation,” said Frank Nemeth, a 15-year HR veteran in Waterloo, Ont. “It kind of takes away some of the value of the designation.”
But the survey of 1,223 Canadian HR Reporter readers and members of the Human Resources Professionals Association also found 41.2 per cent of respondents were uncertain the profession should be more active and vigilant when it comes to disciplining practitioners.
More emphasis needed around lodging complaints
There should be more communication and emphasis on advising members about how to lodge a complaint if someone is acting in a way that violates the profession’s code of conduct or ethics, said Nemeth, who was just granted the new Senior Human Resources Professional designation.
Nearly one-half (45.3 per cent) of respondents agreed and thought it should be easier for the public to file complaints against members. But there also needs to be follow-through on complaints, said Nemeth.
“If we’re going to do it, we should make sure that we do it right and actually demonstrate that we are accountable to one another,” he said.
However, the profession doesn’t have the legislative authority to make a disciplinary process truly meaningful because anyone can work in the field, whether or not they have the CHRP, said David Inkster, who has been in HR for 30 years and teaches at Red Deer College in Red Deer, Alta.
“If you have a profession that controls access to, and has the ability to kick people out of, the profession, then it’s meaningful,” he said. This can be seen with doctors, teachers and accountants who all need professional designations in order to practise, he said.
Under the current system, if there is a disciplinary hearing, the proceedings should only be made public if there is a finding of guilt or misconduct, said Nemeth. Otherwise, an unfounded accusation would tarnish a professional’s reputation.
On the other hand, the rumour mill can be even more damaging to reputations so making the proceedings public could actually help those targeted with an unfounded complaint, said Gary Crawford, an HR and labour relations advisor in Saskatoon.
“Rumours need to be killed by factual information. If someone makes a complaint against me and it is not proven, I have no problem with the nature of the allegation, and the fact it wasn’t substantiated, being publicized to the membership. If I am guilty, then it definitely should be (publicized). Naming the complainant should also be part of this,” he said.
Keep proceedings private
But the majority (60.6 per cent) of respondents didn’t think the proceedings of any disciplinary hearings should be made public, compared to 17.9 per cent who thought the opposite and 21.5 per cent who weren’t sure.
A court conviction shouldn’t necessarily generate an automatic investigation into professional misconduct, with about one-half (46.1 per cent) of respondents in favour of such a policy and almost one-third (31.4 per cent) against it.
Such an investigation should only occur if the conviction is relevant to the profession, said Crawford and Nemeth.
Respondents were nearly evenly split on whether or not HR associations should follow the lead of other professions that require members to report a member who has been terminated for cause, with 38.2 per cent in favour and 35.9 per cent against.
If the cause violated the profession’s code of ethics, then the person should be reported, said Crawford.
