Office Romance Rules in Portugal: Lessons from the Astronomer Case

The viral video was deceptively simple: two executives, Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot of the tech firm Astronomer, embracing at a Coldplay concert. But once tabloids from the New York Post to Spain's Cadena SER identified them, the clip ignited a global debate on power, consent, and corporate governance, culminating in Byron's resignation. The incident puts a sharp focus on office romance rules, and for professionals in Portugal, the legal landscape is nuanced.

Portugal has no blanket ban on colleagues falling in love, even when they sit at the top of the org chart. What the law does demand is that consent be genuine, harassment be absent, and any conflict of interest be managed under a strict code of conduct. Below we unpack the main Portuguese rules that would apply if the now-infamous kiss-cam saga had played out in Lisbon rather than Seattle.

Privacy Comes First: The Sanctity of the “Esfera Íntima”

At its core, Portuguese labour law treats romance as part of a worker’s private sphere, or esfera íntima. Article 16 of the Código do Trabalho (Labour Code) obliges both employer and employee to respect the “privacy of private life,” a clause that explicitly covers “family, emotional, and sexual life” (a vida familiar, afetiva e sexual) (dre.pt). This means employers cannot force staff to disclose a consensual relationship merely because it exists. Furthermore, any monitoring or data collection related to that relationship is strictly constrained by the data protection rules in Articles 16 and 17 of the code. Your love life, by default, is your own.

The Fine Line: When Does Consent Cross into Harassment?

The protection of privacy ends where harassment begins. Article 29 of the Labour Code flat-out forbids it, defining harassment as any undesired behaviour that disturbs a worker’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, or destabilizing environment (dre.pt). A 2017 reform (Law 73/2017) classified harassment as a “very serious” (muito grave) labour offence, obliging companies to investigate all allegations swiftly. Portugal’s labour inspectorate, ACT, even publishes guides to help managers distinguish consensual flirting from pressure from a boss (portal.act.gov.pt). In the Astronomer case, because Byron formally outranked HR chief Cabot, Portuguese inspectors would focus on a key question: could Cabot have freely refused his advances without fearing for her job? If the answer were a clear yes, the relationship would likely remain on the lawful side of Article 29. If not, it could be reclassified as harassment, regardless of any verbal consent.

The Mandatory Code of Conduct for Firms with 7+ Employees

Since 2019, the law has become more prescriptive. Every private employer in Portugal with seven or more employees must adopt and display a “code of good conduct for the prevention and combat of harassment” (código de boa conduta para a prevenção e combate ao assédio), as mandated by Article 127 of the Labour Code. While templates vary, these codes almost always include crucial elements such as disclosure triggers for relationships that create a direct reporting line or supervisory link. They also establish recusal rules to ensure one partner cannot be involved in the performance evaluation, promotion, or pay decisions of the other, alongside disciplinary clauses for misconduct that often mirror Article 394, which permits the dismissal of managers who damage the “honour or dignity” of others through proven harassment (dre.pt).

Power Couples, Conflicts of Interest, and Reputational Risk

Even a perfectly consensual affair can breach an employee's broader duty of loyalty. A CEO who hides a relationship with the head of HR, for instance, could gain privileged access to confidential grievance files or improperly influence salary negotiations. Boards routinely treat such behaviour as a fundamental breach of trust and just cause for dismissal (Idealista). For publicly listed companies, the stakes are even higher. The corporate governance code from Portugal’s securities regulator (CMVM) requires directors to avoid any situation that “may affect the company’s best interests.” Failing to notify the board of a significant conflict of interest could expose an executive to civil liability, entirely separate from any labour sanctions. While Portugal’s strict anti-nepotism statute (Law 52/2019) only binds public officials, many private-sector multinationals voluntarily import similar clauses, partly in response to scandals like the 2024 leadership shake-up at Galp (24 Notícias).

A Practical Guide for Employers in Portugal

Navigating these rules requires proactive steps from employers. It is essential to update the company's code of conduct to specifically address hierarchical relationships and set clear disclosure protocols. Companies must also train managers annually, using the ACT’s harassment guide as a baseline to ensure leaders fully understand the legal risks. Furthermore, a safe, confidential reporting channel must be established that exists outside the direct chain of command, which is especially critical if the HR department itself is compromised. While implementing these measures, employers must respect employee privacy, documenting relationships only when necessary for conflict-of-interest management and not prying further than Article 16 allows. Finally, it is crucial to apply proportional sanctions; while public hand-holding is rarely grounds for dismissal, using one's rank to grant perks or cover up misconduct almost always is.

The Bottom Line

Two senior employees dating is lawful in Portugal, provided the relationship is truly voluntary and the company acts swiftly to neutralize any conflict that could harm other staff or the business. The country’s legal framework creates a careful balance: the privacy shield in Article 16 guards the freedom of adults to form relationships, while the anti-harassment sword in Article 29 strikes whenever power dynamics taint that freedom. As the Astronomer saga shows, the true cost of ignoring these rules is measured not just in court fines, but in boardroom exits and lost public trust.