Cedric Stephens | Sexual harassment risk

The government news agency’s April 2 release caused a scramble in my house. I searched my computer’s hard drive, and admittedly, scrapbooks, to find out if I had correctly identified, three years earlier, a new class of workplace risks in one of my articles.

The search was conducted for another purpose: Were the recommendations that I had proposed to manage those risks wrong? Offering accurate and reliable information in this column is one of my obsessions.

Minister of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport Olivia Grange, according to JIS News, urged “organisations to get ready for the implementation of the Sexual Harassment (Protection & Prevention) Act, 2021’. Brackets or parentheses, according to one source, are “used to include information that is not essential to the main point” . The use of brackets in the title of this legislation would, by that definition, suggest that the key words are sexual harassment. The law’s preamble, however, makes the opposite point.

WORKPLACE POLICIES

The Jamaica Chamber of Commerce has also urged firms to “act now to develop and promulgate workplace policies” to ensure they and their teams are following the law against sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment in the law means the making of any unwelcome sexual advance towards a person, by another person, which (a) is regarded as offensive or humiliating by the person towards whom the sexual advance is made; or (b) has the effect of (i) interfering with the work performance of the person to whom the sexual advance is made or (ii) creating an intimidating, offensive or a hostile work environment.

Under the law, the release read, “Workplaces and institutions are required to issue sexual harassment policies and bring those policies to the attention of workers. The policy should advise workers, clients, students, residents, wards, and members on how complaints of sexual harassment should be reported and addressed”.

My June 16, 2019, comments were written against the background of allegations of sexual misconduct at the Edna Manley College of the Visual and Performing Arts, EMCVPA, in Kingston. The report in this newspaper said that the college chair “reacted with shock at the principal’s revelation that she (the principal) had previously warned a lecturer who was recently sent on leave as a result of alleged sexual misconduct”.

The principal, I wrote then, “was also said to have admitted to a parliamentary committee earlier that week that ‘when a faculty member complained … that students were raising allegations of sexual misconduct, she warned the alleged offender. For some reason, the alleged offender, according to the article, was, inappropriately in my opinion, referred to as ‘the gentleman’ by the principal”.

I castigated the board chair. “Her reaction to the college principal’s comments was equally inappropriate. She did not tell The Gleaner that the board had planned an emergency meeting to discuss and agree on a policy to mitigate future risks of sexual harassment at the institution. Instead, she was reported to have said that ‘the principal has put herself in jeopardy, and we (the board) have called an emergency meeting for Thursday morning, where we expect the principal to respond to questions related to her admission in Parliament’.” Really?

NEW LAW TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT

When Parliament indicated its intention to pass a new law to prevent sexual harassment, I wrote that “organisations, institutions, their leaders, and other individuals were required to pay attention. What policies, procedures, and best practices should we implement to comply with the law? Can we learn from the experiences of neighbouring and other countries how to deal with this emerging class of risk?

“Shouldn’t a tertiary educational institution where the top leadership, faculty, and student body is predominantly female proactively develop plans to reduce these risks and manage allegations of misconduct when they occur? Were questions like these raised by members of EMCVPA’s board? If they were not, board members should be fired. Governance is, ultimately, the responsibility of the board.”

Three years later, The Jamaica Observer of April 7, 2022, and female employees of another government entity confirmed the existence of the workplace risk in an article, ‘JUTC sex scandal’. Allegations were made against a supervisor who employees claimed to be a ‘serial sexual harasser’. The newspaper said that the accusations of harassment were first reported to it six months ago.

Even though the law has had a long gestation period, the Government has given employers 12 months to develop and implement compliance measures. Minister Grange’s statement was silent about the contents of the anti-harassment policies. On the other hand, I offered 15 ideas of things that should be included in those policies. Below is a sample.

Employers should:

• Make it clear that workplace harassment will not be tolerated.

• Provide education and information about harassment to all staff regularly.

• Promote the circulation of information, open communication, and guidance, which are of particular importance in removing the taboo of silence which often surrounds cases of sexual harassment. Information sessions, personnel meetings, office meetings, group discussions, and problem-solving groups can prove very effective.

• Inform staff about the best way of coping with aggression using guidelines and staff-development programmes on sexual harassment at work.

• Develop an anti-harassment policy together with employees, managers, union representatives, and board members.

After nearly two and one-half decades with this column, it is often necessary to review some of the things that I wrote about in former years, with the benefit of hindsight.

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. For free information or counsel, write to: aegis@flowja.com or business@gleanerjm.com