Human Resource Management - Sexual Harassment Case Study.

---

Issue II: Nicholas Min Evaluation

Nicholas Min managed Warren and Lee, and reported to Scott.

Understanding

He was unprepared to address sexual harassment complaints. He should have assured confidentiality, insisted that Lee was not at any risk in naming names, and taken timely action to address the complaint. Instead, he showed very little empathy toward the complainant.

Communication

It is assumed that Min did not provide ongoing promotion of the policy or discussed sexual harassment with his staff, to ensure they understood the company’s policy toward unacceptable behaviour and sexual harassment. Had he done this, Lee may have come forward sooner.

Procedure

Min’s reaction toward Lee indicates he did not take the policy or complaints of sexual harassment seriously. Min failed to identify sexual harassment as unsuitable workplace behaviour and didn’t view the complaint seriously. Had he done so, he would have understood that it was causing Lee distress and affecting her performance, and responded.

Responsibility

Min exhibited avoidance behaviour by not recognising sexual harassment was occuring and he was unprepared and inexperienced to address it. Had he also noted his bias toward Warren, he may have been able to apply better judgment to address the conflict. He also failed to monitor the situation as requested by Scott, and allowed the sexual harassment to continue unabated for five months until Warren’s dismissal.

---

Issue III: Addressing Sexual Harassment

The Lee-Warren case proves the company’s current policy is irrelevant; it is too informal and unsuitable for the organisation’s needs. To create a harassment-free workplace, the company must have a policy that adopts zero tolerance toward sexual harassment. It must receive support at the highest levels of management, including the CEO.

Recommendations:

• Involve an external advisor skilled in the field of developing sexual harassment policies and procedures. A new policy must be written and made relevant to the needs, resources and size of the organisation. It must include formal guidelines.

The advisory team and the company’s senior management team must:

• draft a clear statement of the legal definition of sexual harassment, emphasising that sexual harassment is against the law in any work-related context;
• make it clear that sexual harassment is unacceptable;
• make it clear that no employee will be penalized or victimized for saying “no” to sexual harassment;
• include a grievance program that suits the organisation. The company may want to involve an outside arbitrator to allow discussions with the complainant and the accused, and to remove the managers and any potential biases from the situation;
• outline the processes for dealing with sexual harassment complaints to be adopted through the company. Policy information must be included in the company’s employee training courses;
• ensure the policy is reviewed by legal counsel and upholds state and federal anti-discrimination legislation;
• ensure the policy upholds occupational health and safety requirements;
• ensure that all members of the senior management team endorse the sexual harassment policy, and that it is made part of the company’s strategic human resource management plan.
• involve Scott in the drafting of a new policy to ensure it is communicated through the organisation, and that all managers clearly understand their roles and responsibilities.

The revised policy would observe that all managers/supervisors must:

• receive training on how to address sexual harassment complaints;
• promote a harmonious working environment where individuals feel secure that they can seek assistance on matters of unwelcome behaviour in the workplace, and that they have the trust and confidence of their managers;
• take complaints seriously, sensitively, fairly and in a confidential manner;
• ensure the person complained against is treated fairly;
• address complaints when they are made.

Management has the responsibility of promoting information about disciplinary action resulting from the case. Employees need to understand the possible consequences of sexual harassment and, depending on the nature of the complaint and privacy of the individuals involved, cases should be brought out into the open to remove paranoia. Employees must be aware that immediate disciplinary action will be taken against anyone who victimizes or retaliates against a complainant.

The new policy must be promoted throughout the organisation through educational programmes including posters, displays of the policy on notice boards, awareness seminars, in-house publications and induction kits. Line managers must review the programme every quarter or six months, and present the results to senior management. The policy must receive regular six-month reviews by the human resource department and, if necessary, an external advisor to track its effectiveness. Managers must be audited to ensure that they are discussing sexual harassment with their staff at least once every six months, and that new employees receive the appropriate policy awareness education. Staff must also be interviewed to ensure they are receiving awareness education. Clear guideless of documenting and recording complaints of sexual harassment must be outlined to employees.

Finally, the company needs to undergo a cultural change that recognizes equality between men and women, and their rights.

---

Issue IV: Anti-Discrimination Board involvement

Had the complaint been taken to the Anti-Discrimination Board in writing, it would have been reviewed according to the law. The board would have asked Lee’s permission to speak with the company about the complaint, and remind them not to treat the complainant badly as a result of the submission.

The company would be required to provide documentation of internal procedures for handling complaints of sexual harassment. This would determine whether the company was legally responsible for the complaint. They would be held responsible unless they can show that they took “reasonable steps” to present the discrimination from happening.

Acting impartially, the board would attempt to settle the dispute by conciliation, helping both parties come to an agreement on how to privately resolve the problem. This could result in the company providing financial compensation to the complainant as part of the settlement. If this approach is unsuccessful or deemed inappropriate, the complainant can apply to the Federal Magistrates Court or Federal Court of Australia for judicial review.

Conclusion

Companies must take a serious and active role in creating a harassment-free workplace for employees. Well-structure policy and procedures must be adopted to address sexual harassment in the workplace. Management must understand that an effective sexual harassment plan provides competitive advantage by creating a safe and productive environment for employees, and the opportunity of retaining and hiring highly skilled workers.

---

Appendix I: Timeline of Events

Estimated Timeline of events

1. June 1999

Lee announces engagement, harassment begins.

2. December 1999

Lee approaches Min, who responds by suggesting that nothing can be done unless she has evidence. She does not reveal the name of the person she suspects is behind the sexual harassment.

3. Mid to Early January 2000

Warren begins to act aggressive, touches Lee who warns him never to touch her again. Lee books off on sick leave for two weeks.

4. 28 January 2000

Lee returns from sick leave, and files first complaint with Robert Scott, Director of Corporate HR.

Scott meets with Warren, who admits to having sexually harassed Lee. After contemplating the possibility of an unfair dismissal lawsuit, Scott meets with Min and recommends that Warren undergo severe counseling and that Min monitor the situation.

5. 5 July 2000

Lee approaches Scott a second time about ongoing sexual harassment. Lee notes that the sexual harassment had not stopped after Scott’s late-January order that Warren undergo severe counselling. Warren fired.

Appendix II: References

Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW: What does the Board do? (2004), Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales, [Online]. [Accessed 31 March 04], Available at www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb.nsf/pages/empresp

Fighting Sexual Harassment, Alliance Against Sexual Coercion, Boston, Mass: Alyson Publications and Aliiance Against Sexual Coercion, 1981.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sexual Harassment: A Code of Practice (2004), [Online]. [Accessed 28 April 2004], Available at http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sex_discrimination/code_practice/index.html

It’s Just a Compliment, Luv, Sydney: Australian Film Institute, Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union, Working Women’s Charter Committee, 1981

Leave Me Alone [videorecording], Lindfield, NSW: Film Australia, 1986

Preventing Sex-Based Harassment: a resource manual for NSW public sector organisations, East Sydney: NSW Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment, 1992, p.8

Unwelcome Advances [videorecording], Syndey, Australia: ABC television, Lateline broadcast 1 November 1994

Whose legal responsibility is it to make sure the law is followed? (2004), Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales, [Online]. [Accessed 31 March 04], available at www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adb.nsf/pages/empresp

What is harassment? (2004), Anti-discrimination Board, [Online]. [Accessed 31 March 2004], Available at www.lawlink.nsw.gov

---