Representation: Support person or representative?
I know you’re wondering about this. I know because I check it regularly too- because it’s odd to be continuously offering two versions of the same thing. I’m certain you write letters with the phrase ‘welcome to bring a support person/representative’, with that brain twitch ‘this doesn’t read well, surely there’s a better way to put this’. So what is the difference?
At the time of writing, there is no clear differentiation between the two in law. In practice, a representative is an advocate, someone who participates in the process and conversation to assist the employee. A support person is a metaphorical ‘hand-holder’ someone who sits with and emotionally supports the person, listens but doesn’t engage in the discussion.
What difference does this make in practice?
To be honest, it would be a lot simpler if we didn’t have these two terms- it’s not helpful, because the describe two different styles of support. We don’t need that level of granular distinction. If by court or parliament these terms were cleaned up it would help everyone.
It doesn’t make much difference in practice because the employer can’t dictate the role this extra person takes. It’s a question of style, tactics or preference by the employee and/or their representative. The employer can’t silence this third party, although they can assert that they want to hear from the employee- so the representative can be constrained, but not silenced.
The only practical way the terms may have any bearing, is if the employee brings both. They don’t have a right to bring a crowd (unless it’s in your policy), but you might agree it’s a good idea that they have more support. If this is the case, I would suspect you’re dealing with a more complex emotional situation (for example, the employee’s emotional welfare is of concern), in which case, you’re likely to be taking a less confrontational approach.
Do they need one?
Perhaps that’s the first and most important question; do they need a representative? The simple answer is no, they only need to have the choice; the fair opportunity to get one should they want one.
Long answer: it depends. Depends on the issue, the problem, and the tactics they are going with. Mostly it’s about comfort zone- is the employee out of their comfort zone in such a serious meeting? Are they out of their depth?
Lots of people go it alone. They might ‘have this’- it’s something within their comfort zone of situations you can handle; they are not out of their depth. Alternatively it may not be a big deal- it could be a minor warning, an early stage of performance issues they are confident they can turn around, or a consultation process, where the need to have someone is pretty minor.
Should you suggest or insist?
If the meetings important, they likely need one. If you’re concerned they aren’t getting the magnitude of the situation, you might strongly suggest. If you think they are likely to make a mess of the situation, it could be a good idea. But can you require? No.
