At the weekend, was the case of a Federal employee publicly, to have been harassed by your boss sexually. As she resisted, she was fired. Your company has examined the case: What went wrong?
On the specific case, I may not respond due to reasons of personality protection in more detail. But what you have just outlined is not the case. As you can see in the court of public opinion, there were various reasons for the termination, among other things, baseless bullying accusations. Such media reports create the impression that one could lose, as a woman, only if you fight back. This is wrong. You should claim the protection of the employer in the workplace.
Now you could read but, what kind of has made the sayings of the Accused: There was talk of a Kiss on the cheek, from the salutation “Schätzeli” – that is, there is a clear sexual reference.
I give you with all the basic examples. In the case of verbal harassment it needs a concrete sexual relation, the decisive factor is the context. The boss to the employee “says you Come from?”, can you interpret that as a sexually connoted. Therefore, you must always look to the specific case.
“Schätzeli” is not equal to “Schätzeli”?
A fictional example: A team leader and a subordinate employee have a casual tone and write yourself notes explicit sexual content. Both feel comfortable, laugh. In this case, although there is a sexual reference, but not sexual harassment, because the criterion of undesirability is not given. A different employee, but such a paper and feel uncomfortable, given the undesirability.
“no need to arrive at To so that he understands it.”
The court also criticized their investigation report.
Probably, the court has decided on the basis of the files and the persons interviewed. It was only the question of whether the behaviour of the superiors of a sexual relation, and said: Yes. It has thrown out all allegations of sexual harassment in a pot, and wrote, to question how we could come up with an idea there is no sexual relation. We didn’t say that but, of course, there is a part of the Expressions of a sexual relation. Nevertheless, we had to consider the question of the undesirability, in the context.
read the court of their report wrong?
The Prosecutor’s office of the Canton of Bern has dealt with our report. The data had shown me and my colleagues on the basis of the report, due to abuse and slander. The Prosecutor acknowledged to us that we surveyed extensively, the statements adequately assessed, objectively, had argued that the report have a logical consistency, and the conclusion is a plausible conclusion. The procedure was not taken on the basis.
we Take the case to the University: The Professor is said to have invited his doctoral student again and again to eat, she refused again and again. This is harassment?
Yes. An invitation to coffee, or to clearly communicate the way that someone like, per se, is not sexual harassment. As soon as the has set his boundaries but, so says: I don’t want to drink coffee with you, you must respect the other. In the workplace, the motto is enough to say: “no”.
How significantly do you need?
It must arrive at To so that he understands it. I’ll give you an example. We had a 53-year-old chief, of his 19-year-old learners are always invited to go out after work for a drink. You said: I have no money or no time, or the like. Here, you can’t expect the 19-Year-old defends himself explicitly. In the case of a 45-year-old woman with a lot experience and a good Position, however, you are allowed to expect more. For example, she tells the boss it clear that she wants only a professional relationship.
If now, as was the case at the University of Basel someone enters into a relationship and after the termination of claims, you have not actually wanted from the beginning: How does one determine whether it was sexual harassment?
If someone joins in and if it comes to sexual acts, common dinner, on excursions, if the impression arises that the two have a relationship or an affair, it will be difficult. Then you would have to look at what is Moment, the Person felt harassed.
The doctoral student said she had feared disadvantages if they refuse.
Since you have mining already deep, you can’t say automatically: you have participated in, so you may not have felt harassed. It is necessary to check the specific circumstances. I would maybe take a closer look at the Fears and questions: examples of disadvantages?
In the case of ETH was criticised that those who had complained about the Professor, were recognized in the proceedings as a party.
The question is always, what is the order of the point. My recommendation is transparency, so A correct procedure provides for the right to be accompanied, the Accused should get space to Express themselves and to be able to take on the allegations. Each of the parties to the Proceedings should also be notified of the outcome of the proceedings.
At the ETH and in one case, the auditors EY of the investigation report finally came, it was able to find not a criminally relevant Offence. That’s the whole point in the workplace?
Criminal harassment need not always correspond to what applies in the workplace as sexual harassment. But if that is the issue, this may well be the result, and is then also correct.
Even if it is not the “Code of Conduct” of the company?
the topic of false allegations: How often?
We have been doing for 15 years, such investigations, and I can remember a maximum of five cases. (Editorial Tamedia)
Created: 21.02.2019, 10:10 PM
