Who Handles Smelly Employees – QA or HR?

We have a situation that comes up more often than should be that keeps getting bounced back and forth between QA and the HR department. This is what our GMP states regarding smelly employees:

• Employees must maintain adequate personal cleanliness.

HR feels it's our job as QA to handle people who smell like a can of tuna. In non-food companies people who lack personal hygiene are left for HR to deal with, is it our job to address smelly people as well, or should the issue be dealt with by both parties together?

This will be facility specific in some regards, how one company or facility operates can be different than another. 

I would, however, typically expect identifying the problem to fall to the food safety and quality team, and perhaps even the first escalation steps related to segregation (remove hazards from the proximity of product), but the rest of the resolution is between HR and their supervisor.

This general kind of division of responsibilities happens with lots of other things too.  We might be responsible for identifying other kinds of problems too, like materials out of spec, inadequate sanitation, etc., but fixing the problem or even deciding how to fix it is usually someone else's responsibility.  

I often dealt with it in my last job because we had a bunch of younger people and I can approach it more like a mom.  So the managers would ask me if I would address it.  It's easy to forget that employees might not have access to hot showers or washing machines.  The young man I had to talk to a few times had to rely on his mother to take him to the laundry mat every few weeks.  His smell was less about body odor and more due to wet clothes that didn't get dried (you know when you find clothes in your washing machine after a few days).  Many years ago, I worked with an amazing person that was very overweight and his issue was the smell that gets trapped in folds of skin.  I know he bathed and tried to wash all those areas.  I think the issue should be handled by whomever can do it with the most tact. I also agree that HR should be better equipped to discuss delicate situations with employees.  Ultimately, employees that do not maintain personal hygiene as required by food regulations and programs can be fired for it.  So there's your justification for HR to be involved.  

No one wants this job. However, I feel it falls under HR. It's an employee issue. Like others said - it could be due to lack of resources. This is for HR to determine and then offer resources. It also falls on their supervisor. Another person perhaps - the person in charge of employee health. 

What does your HR say when it is regards to strong perfume and that being an issue? For us, that falls on the manager to talk to the employee about. 

Often more than not - it falls on the person that can be the most tactful/respectful at handling the situation. 

Ugh,had to deal with this with a past employee once.   Not a comfortable conversation.   I do think Azuzak makes a good point, so need to take care with that aspect of it.     For our case, the guy was a well paid fella, lived in a nice enough house, wanted for nothing, but he and his wife had like 50 cats, and he stunk like cat pee.   He also had bed bug bites all over himself, and just lived with it, and no intention of trying to deal with it at all, which absolutely blew my mind.  Eventually pulled him aside and had the talk, and told him the company would be willing to help him bomb his house or whatever, but something had to be done, we were finding bed bugs in the locker room, etc.    So we eventually got it dealt with, but it was a nightmare.   Absolute nightmare.   We did end up chipping in a little money to clean his house of bed bugs, etc, and he did better with the cat thing, and at least showed up to work not smelling like pee.   He retired not long after, and I've seen him on the random in town, and he's back to old tricks, but it ain't my problem now....

As it is COMPANY POLICY it is an HR issue, just like any other policy that was not being followed.  FULL STOP

We have a lot of body odour issues, and I am not about to have the discussion, not my forte and not my responsibility

We are not the default clean up crew for personnel issues 

My thoughts are that the First level of discussion should be had with their immediate supervisor.

Second conversation may be with a person that has a good rapport with the employee and HR, getting insight, and brainstorm solutions.

Third step is their supervisor and HR, laying out the expectations, repercussions, and follow up.

All these steps need documentation and then if all of this fails, you may need to terminate an employee.

Agreed with others, QA should identify the issue and raise it to HR. The responsibility of confronting the issue should be left with HR and/or that employee's supervisor though. 

It's important when handling these situations not to be too judgmental in your confrontation. People can have a variety of issues going on in their lives that may lead to them not taking the best care of themselves. For that reason it's best to leave the confrontation to HR. HR professionals should agree with this perspective too, it's a big part of their job to help balance the relationship employers have with the personal lives of their employees.

I would change this - "Employees must maintain adequate personal cleanliness."

That's a can of tuna statement - definition of ADEQUATE can be many things.

We use - Employees exhibiting offensive body odor will be dismissed that day from the facility with a recommendation made to seek medical attention.

A requirement for  doctor/practitioner/hollistic MD/clinic note is required for return to work.

In the past year 3 issues, of which 1 decided to not to come back to work, another found that he had an illness that caused the issue and the third just needed to take a shower more than once a month.

Ps..  QA identifies and HR handles it. 

Like the others have all said. QC can identify the problem but HR to handle. 

Another reason for HR to handle - they should know employee labor laws/rights. So what can and can not be said to an employee.  

I would change this - "Employees must maintain adequate personal cleanliness."

 

That's a can of tuna statement - definition of ADEQUATE can be many things.

 

We use - Employees exhibiting offensive body odor will be dismissed that day from the facility with a recommendation made to seek medical attention.

 

A requirement for  doctor/practitioner/hollistic MD/clinic note is required for return to work.

 

In the past year 3 issues, of which 1 decided to not to come back to work, another found that he had an illness that caused the issue and the third just needed to take a shower more than once a month.

I don't see how "offensive" is less subjective than "adequate."  Maybe they come to work smelling like putrescine or concentrated urea because they enjoy the aroma.  Maybe his "medical professional" also finds the aroma alluring.  Their preferences don't matter.

Plenty of gov regulations use 'adequate'. If it's good enough for the FDA and USDA, its good enough for my GMPs.

Ah this old chestnut!

I've had to have this conversation with three employees in the past.  But all worked for me.  So in my mind, that was my job.  HR should not automatically be sending it to the QA team but with how the HR function has changed in the last 20-30 years, you need to face facts, they will be sending it to the line manager to sort and won't be doing it themselves.  But that's a commentary on how HR has been devalued and everything has been piled upon overworked line managers and a different topic altogether.

On how to approach the conversation, the last one I did went better than the first.  I gently but genuinely said to him "you are a talented employee and I don't want something like this to hold you back."  

I meant every word, he took it as it was meant and changed his washing behaviours.

But sensitivity is required and I'm sorry, this really still does not mean HR are getting off their a**es to help you.  They honestly are down to 1-2 people for hundreds or even thousands in most factories I've worked in nowadays.  As a manager, you should know the law that applies in your country for equity and diversity and be able to have difficult conversations.  So yes, be sensitive.  Consider that there may be medical conditions or home situations which could be impacting their ability to stay clean and hygienic.  Offer help.  In the UK there is a charity called "Grocery Aid" which anyone in the food industry can access.  They can award grants to people on hard times and might be able to help in this situation if the problem is an insecure housing situation or a mental health issue which means the person is taking less care of themselves.  I'm unsure if there is similar in the US or other countries.

And lastly, if HR have batted one to you that isn't from your department, point out they should be talking to the employee's line manager.  It ain't your job in that situation.

My thoughts are that the First level of discussion should be had with their immediate supervisor.

Second conversation may be with a person that has a good rapport with the employee and HR, getting insight, and brainstorm solutions.

Third step is their supervisor and HR, laying out the expectations, repercussions, and follow up.

All these steps need documentation and then if all of this fails, you may need to terminate an employee.

Ah the differences between UK and US labour laws...  It would have to be a multiple stage disciplinary process in the UK to get to termination involving an informal process (which, to be fair, almost always solves a problem like this) then verbal warning, written warning, final written warning then termination.  But if there is any reason for which there is a disability that would get to thorny territory under UK legislation.  I'd definitely get HR involved if you started to think of a formal process leading to potential termination.  But for the informal bit where this will almost certainly be fixed, yes it's their immediate supervisor who should handle it.

Ah the differences between UK and US labour laws...  It would have to be a multiple stage disciplinary process in the UK to get to termination involving an informal process (which, to be fair, almost always solves a problem like this) then verbal warning, written warning, final written warning then termination.  But if there is any reason for which there is a disability that would get to thorny territory under UK legislation.  I'd definitely get HR involved if you started to think of a formal process leading to potential termination.  But for the informal bit where this will almost certainly be fixed, yes it's their immediate supervisor who should handle it.

I was drastically over-simplifying the process.  :giggle: In my experience, the employee gets frustrated and leaves.

Documentation of your standard and how often the employee deviates from that is vital.

I was drastically over-simplifying the process.  :giggle: In my experience, the employee gets frustrated and leaves.

 

Documentation of your standard and how often the employee deviates from that is vital.

Even in the most blatant cases of utter incompetence or outrageous actions by employees in the UK, that tends not to happen.  Many companies, fearful of the hassle of a tribunal offer a settlement agreement to get someone to go so it's often worth the employee holding out.

In no way am I advocating going to the MUCH easier task of getting rid of employees in the US but sometimes it feels like you can't win with people who should not be employed by the company in the UK.  You really do have to dot every i and cross every t.  What's worse is even if you do, you often find someone else hasn't.