Pinoy Entrepreneurs, in establishing a company or business, usually have a code of conduct for employees. This may not be necessary for business endeavors that are just starting out, but having a set of policies should always be considered. There’s a wide array of policies. For our discussion, let’s focus on a policy that recently reached the courts -- the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company. It has been said that love blossoms in every place and circumstance, including the workplace.

 

Prohibiting close relatives from working in the same company takes the nature of an anti-nepotism employment policy. Companies adopt these policies to prevent the hiring of unqualified persons based on their status as a relative, rather than upon their ability. These policies focus upon the potential employment problems arising from the perception of favoritism exhibited towards relatives.

With more women entering the workforce, employers are also enacting employment policies specifically prohibiting spouses from working for the same company. There are two types of employment policies involving spouses: policies banning only spouses from working in the same company (no-spouse employment policies), and those banning all immediate family members, including spouses, from working in the same company (anti-nepotism employment policies).  

Previous cases discuss the requirement of reasonableness of the policy, and the company has the burden to prove the existence of a reasonable business necessity. In one case, the court validated the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company. This is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In another case, the employee was dismissed in violation of petitioner’s policy of disqualifying from work any woman worker who contracts marriage. The court invalidated the policy, but established a permissible exception – as long as the policy could be justified as a “bona fide occupational qualification,” or BFOQ, where the particular requirements of the job would justify the same, but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the desirability of spreading work in the workplace. A requirement of that nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.