CEO to HR: "You are simply only here to advise me..."

Not in fact quite so simple.

The CEO, like the HR Manager, is an employee of the company. The company being a separate "entity" created and owned by its shareholders. Therefore both CEO and HR Manager are duty-bound to serve its interests. (Even if the CEO holds all the shares).

On that basis there is a point at which, if the HRM is convinced the CEO is making a decision which is against the company's interests and will ultimately cause it harm (lets say something like choosing not to employ women in senior roles) they must say: "No".

Having offered the necessary explanation, if the CEO persists, thy will either be dismissed, must resign as constructively dismissed, or may submit the matter to legal authority as of Public Interest (if they deem it to be so).

Either way, the resolution is a matter for decision at law, where the CEO's decision will be assessed in the context of its authority over the HR standpoint, and (if found wrong) then based upon that outcome will undoubtedly also be considered at the next shareholder's meeting.

As professionals we accept on obligation to act on our duties both to our employer (the business, not the person running it) and to our CoC. There are some lines we therefore cannot cross, some positions we cannot compromise, relying upon the law that demands that position to also defend us in our defiance.

...and hopefully our professional body to (one day) also support us practically in our defence, if needed, with more than a 15-minuter phone conversation (as do TUs)

But meanwhile we can rely on our "Community" here to offer at least some support, without limit :-)

P

Not in fact quite so simple.

The CEO, like the HR Manager, is an employee of the company. The company being a separate "entity" created and owned by its shareholders. Therefore both CEO and HR Manager are duty-bound to serve its interests. (Even if the CEO holds all the shares).

On that basis there is a point at which, if the HRM is convinced the CEO is making a decision which is against the company's interests and will ultimately cause it harm (lets say something like choosing not to employ women in senior roles) they must say: "No".

Having offered the necessary explanation, if the CEO persists, thy will either be dismissed, must resign as constructively dismissed, or may submit the matter to legal authority as of Public Interest (if they deem it to be so).

Either way, the resolution is a matter for decision at law, where the CEO's decision will be assessed in the context of its authority over the HR standpoint, and (if found wrong) then based upon that outcome will undoubtedly also be considered at the next shareholder's meeting.

As professionals we accept on obligation to act on our duties both to our employer (the business, not the person running it) and to our CoC. There are some lines we therefore cannot cross, some positions we cannot compromise, relying upon the law that demands that position to also defend us in our defiance.

...and hopefully our professional body to (one day) also support us practically in our defence, if needed, with more than a 15-minuter phone conversation (as do TUs)

But meanwhile we can rely on our "Community" here to offer at least some support, without limit :-)

P