Love in the workplace: Lawyer discusses the risks and realities of office romances

The "kiss-cam" viral video from a Coldplay concert involving the then-CEO of Astronomer and the company's senior HR executive sparked debate about how personal relationships can disrupt professional reputations and raise questions about accountability.

Then earlier this month, Nestlé made headlines when its Board of Directors dismissed CEO Laurent Freixe following an internal investigation into an undisclosed relationship with a direct subordinate.

These incidents highlight the growing scrutiny of workplace relationships, especially when power imbalances or conflicts of interest are involved.

For global corporations, the consequences range from legal disputes to reputational damage, reminding employers that personal entanglements are rarely private when they cross into the workplace.

Singapore employers face the same dilemma. As employee conduct comes under sharper scrutiny, HR leaders must decide whether to regulate office romances, require disclosure, or intervene when relationships create risks of favoritism, team disruption, or claims of unfair treatment.

Without a consistent approach, organisations expose themselves to greater legal and reputational vulnerabilities.

To shed light on these challenges, HRD Asia spoke with Khelvin Xu, director at Covenant Chambers LLC, to discuss how Singapore employers can address office romances with foresight, legal compliance, and sensitivity to workplace dynamics.

Should employers intervene in workplace romances?

Xu says there is no universal expectation that employers must intervene when relationships develop at work. Much depends on the organisation’s culture and policies.

"So it’s a little presumptuous to think that an employer would be ‘expected’ to intervene on moral grounds, because whose morals or expectations are we talking about?”

Xu adds that legal justifications for intervention are also limited. “It gets even trickier if we consider legal grounds, because there might not be a legal basis to terminate an employee for having a workplace relationship with another employee, unless such a relationship is in breach of a binding internal policy.”

Ultimately, intervention is a matter of organisational choice.

“So while an employer may well choose to intervene, it is harder to say whether an employer is ‘expected’ to intervene, or whether an employer will intervene.”

Disclosure rules for office romances in Singapore

One option is to require employees to disclose romantic relationships at work, especially where conflicts of interest could arise. Xu notes that this is legally permissible in Singapore when backed by a binding internal policy.

“Yes, if there is a binding internal policy that employees must disclose such relationships,” he says. “Employees are expected to obey orders which are lawful and reasonable.”

From his perspective, disclosure can serve an important purpose. “An argument can be made that it is not unreasonable for an employer to expect such relationships to be disclosed, so that steps can be taken to ensure no conflicts of interests.”

Xu also clarifies how data privacy law interacts with this requirement. “The Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA) is less relevant to this exercise, as employers need not obtain consent before collecting, using, and disclosing personal data that is reasonable for the purposes of managing the employment relationship.”

Risks when couples work across departments

While many employers restrict relationships only in reporting lines, Xu cautions that risks extend further.

“Whether HR can intervene will again depend on whether there is a binding internal policy in place,” he says.

“The last thing HR wants is to summon a pair of employees into a meeting to inform them that they are not allowed to be in a relationship, only to be challenged and asked whether such a rule is reflected in any policy anywhere.”

But inaction carries its own dangers. “Suppose the couple works in different departments, but one of them is in the management team. It’s not too far-fetched to think that peers or even superiors would be more reluctant to speak up about perceived shortcomings or weaknesses in the more junior employee.”

He points out how perceptions of bias can escalate quickly. “And what if a peer who is passed over for a promotion subsequently cries foul about alleged favouritism?”

Xu says this is particularly relevant for evolving businesses. “In particular, organisations that are transitioning from being small owner-led outfits to more decentralised institutions should consider whether the time has come to implement such policies.”

Are blanket bans enforceable — and wise?

On paper, companies can impose blanket bans on office romances, but Xu says practical challenges often make this approach unattractive.

“A binding internal policy that imposes a blanket ban on workplace relationships would likely be enforceable,” he says. “However, employers may be reluctant to impose such a blanket ban for various reasons.”

Fresh graduate cohorts, for example, may already include couples before joining. “Take, for example, companies that regularly onboard dozens of fresh graduates with the same degree at the same time. It’s no stretch to think that within each cohort, there would be fresh employees who are already in an existing relationship.”

The issue can also affect senior talent. “More cynically, suppose a situation arises where two different top performers in the company enter into a relationship, which is then brought to management’s attention. Perhaps management thinks that this particular relationship does not give rise to a conflict of interests, and does not want to let go of one of the two top performers.”

If rules are too rigid, management may lose flexibility. “But if there is such a blanket ban in place, then its hand may be forced, lest it be accused by other employees of favouritism or failing to adhere to its own policies.”

For many companies, this trade-off is the sticking point. “An employer might therefore prefer not to have such a blanket ban in place, in order to keep its options open. It boils down to a question of trade-offs… Is the employer prepared to draw a clear line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what is not, and stick to its guns even if powerful stakeholders object?”

“Every employer will answer that question in its own way,” he adds.

Power dynamics: the blind spot employers miss

Perhaps the most overlooked risk is power imbalance. Xu warns that consent in senior-junior relationships can be complicated.

“I suggest that too many employers fail to take power dynamics into account when considering whether a relationship is consensual or not,” he says.

Often, investigations conclude once both employees confirm the relationship is voluntary.

“Suppose, for example, a complaint is made that a senior employee is having a relationship with a junior employee. Upon investigation, both employees say that the relationship is purely consensual, and they promise to keep things professional.”

Xu argues that such inquiries can miss the larger issue. “But this misses the wider picture. Suppose this is a situation where the senior employee was the one who first approached the junior employee with a romantic intent.”

Even if the relationship seems consensual, he says context matters. “Even if the junior employee ultimately consented to entering into a relationship, how much of this was driven by the power imbalance, and potentially, the implicit fear of the consequences of not reciprocating?”

Raising questions about consent can also be difficult. “And yet, it is potentially insulting and infantalising to ask the junior employee if they have ‘really’ consented to the relationship.”

When relationships sour in the workplace

Romantic relationships can end, leaving HR to deal with the fallout. Xu stresses that organisations must be prepared for this possibility if they allow relationships to form at work.

“I think this is a situation where the employer has to lie in the bed that it has made,” he says.

“If the employer has, whether tacitly or explicitly, allowed workplace romances to happen, then it must be prepared for the aftermath if the relationship doesn’t work out, as is often the case.”

He notes that solutions are often more about people management than law. “Any solution will have to be more human-centric, as opposed to legal… HR might consider sitting down with the affected employees, counsel them, and encourage them to keep things professional.”

But escalation is still possible. “What if things don’t get better, and management eventually decides that one or both of the employees will need to be let go? What if the employee goes out kicking and screaming? Will this open the employer up to allegations of unfair treatment or even wrongful dismissal?”

Xu concludes that this explains why some companies prefer firm rules. “There’s no easy solution to this, which also helps to explain why some employers would prefer to impose a blanket ban to reduce the risk of having to deal with such a situation.”

Beyond termination, HR can also develop early intervention protocols to manage risks. Confidential mediation, temporary reassignments, or structured communication guidelines may help contain tensions before they escalate.

These measures not only protect workplace cohesion but also signal that the employer is committed to handling sensitive matters with care.

Public scrutiny, gossip, and moral objections

Even in the absence of a formal complaint, public knowledge of a workplace romance can spark gossip or moral backlash. Xu says the employer’s response should hinge on whether policies exist.

“If there is a binding internal policy in place, then it doesn’t matter whether or not the workplace relationship has become public, or whether internal backlash has arisen... Once the company has been made aware of the breach of the policy, it should then proceed to act in accordance with the policy.”

But without a clear policy, employers face tougher calls. “If there is no binding internal policy in place, then it is less clear whether an employer has a duty to act… It is ultimately for the employer to decide, based on the trade-offs involved.”

“But once a relationship has gone public and there is internal backlash, most employers would find that not taking action to be untenable.”

Balancing trust and protection in workplace culture

Xu believes that there is no perfect solution. “I suggest it is very difficult to strike a balance, because it boils down to whether employees are going to be sensible and trustworthy. Most companies, especially large ones, will find it difficult to guarantee that of every single employee.”

He adds that this is why policies exist in the first place. “At the end of the day, policies are put in place because companies acknowledge that not every employee can be trusted to do the right thing all the time.”

Employers, he says, must make a principled choice. “So it ultimately boils down to whether the company is prepared to take a principled stand: does it want to shut out the possibility of complications arising out of workplace relationships, and is prepared to accept the risk of top performers leaving the company as a result of a blanket ban?”

Flexibility also comes with consequences. “Conversely, if the company does not want to put a blanket ban in place because it wants to keep its options open as to how to deal with such a situation in [the] future, then it has to accept the increased likelihood of employees entering into workplace relationships, and with all the resulting potential complications. Again, it’s a question of trade-offs.”

Why HR must act with foresight

From global boardrooms to Singapore offices, workplace romances test how organisations balance human connection with professional responsibility.

Xu’s guidance makes clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but inaction carries significant dangers.

For HR leaders, the task is not simply to enforce rules but to safeguard workplace integrity, address power imbalances, and communicate policies transparently.

By acting with foresight and consistency, employers can reduce the risk of disputes while treating employees with the respect that sustains long-term trust.