Sexual Harassment at the Work Place

Valid evidence to prove the case of sexual harassment

There is empirical evidence justifying that there were violations of the law on account of sexual harassment. The victim of sexual harassment here is Rosetta Maurizio against the aggressors; the men working in the finishing department aided by the supervisor. Rosetta faced violations in forms of utterances and equations to Italian food. For instance, one guy brutally asked whether Rosetta preferred Italian men over Canadian men. This is a clear signal of sexual harassment. Further, the degree of harassment graduates from a sexual harassment foundation to racist and abusive language. In addition to Rosetta’s case, Eva is sexually harassed by the finishing department supervisor Al. When Eva presented her case to Al, his remarks are defensive of the men’s actions. Al as the supervisor did not take an initiative to investigate allegations presented by Eva; primarily, because it was womanly taking up a feminine case. Al is quoted to have said, ‘just some good old-fashioned fun jokes, nothing to be shocked. I think she was just too sensitive’. This is a clear indication that Al is taking sides with the men.

What actions to be Taken

Objectively, it is prudent to ascertain that Eva took the appropriate initiative to report the matter to the supervisor, Mr. Al. However, taking to account the development of the situation, it is coherent to pursue decisive options to ensure that Mr. Al is responsible for his arrogant attitude. When it comes to pursuing relevant industrial measures, it is logical to follow protocol. In this case, Eva was mandated to report to the leading human resource department. The human resources will be responsible of commencing investigative measures to Mr. Al and his sympathizers. If the organization finds Mr. Al guilty, then the organization should temporarily dismiss him from work. Secondly, the organization should probe Al on account of covering sexual harassment at work. Failure of this, Eva should file sexual harassment charges to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. In any event, the human resource department should carry appropriate investigation pertaining sexual harassment incidences against Rosetta and Eva. Consequently, the company being presented by Mr. Al should be ready to pay damages to Rosetta’s lost wages and general disorientation at work.

What are AL’s responsibilities, and in this instance, did he carry them out well?

Al responsibilities stretch valiantly. Firstly, the organization has empowered Al to institute appropriate disciplinary measures without fear of intimidation or coercion. To this effect, Al should have listened to Rosetta carefully, since his office was mandated to summon the aggressors. On the second incidence, Al could have listened to Eva’s reports and since he had a similar complaint on Rosetta. In this case, he should have taken action by instituting disciplinary measures against the male aggressors. However, Al did not carry out his duties well. First, it is sensible to consider that Al was defensive, and in fact he claims that Eva considers him unfair. In his defense, Al claims that the utterances were just old fashioned jokes and nothing to be shocked about. According to industrial relations; an employee should not experience such jokes inform of flirting. In response, Al should have endeavored to eliminate discriminatory jokes and ensure that every employee in the organization is well respected.

References

None requested