In the hallowed halls of justice, Justice Christine Baari of the Employment and Labour Relations Court recently penned a stern reminder—a tale drawn not from fantasy but from a real and sobering clash between duty and conduct.
A case unfolded: Cooperative Bank versus a former Operations Manager, whose career ended not with thunder, but with whispers and gestures that crossed sacred boundaries.
Dismissed in 2015, the manager sought shelter in court, claiming injustice. Yet, what the court unearthed was a deeper truth.
Two unsettling moments had occurred: One, a touch to the neck and waist, a pat on the back, all while overseeing cash balances at the tellers. Innocent in task, perhaps. But not in contact. The second, words cloaked in jest, telling a nursing mother to hurry, hinting she hadn’t expressed enough milk. That comment struck deeper than intended.
The teller, WO, messaged him and expressed her discomfort. He apologised. But apologies, though tender, do not erase the harm.
Certain important issues are key to the general public and the employers in this case.
First, the Employment Act Section 6 requires that any employers with 20 or more employees must have a Sexual Harassment Policy in order to deal with incidents of any sexual harassment and ensure the work environment is free of it. This means, it is a violation and act of omission if you are an employer with such number of employees and have no policy.
This is likely to expose you since in case of any claims, the court will find that your work environment was not safe and the employees had no way of knowing what constitutes sexual harassment in that work place. Further, in the absence of such policy, it inconceivable that the employee would have internal recourse before proceeding to court. This is not to say the employers with less than 20 employees should not have sexual harassment policies. As a precaution they should but not as a legal obligation.
Sexual harassment policy
Secondly, the court found that what amounts to sexual harassment depends not on the intention of the one from which the conduct emanates. What is key is whether the conduct is unpalatable, unwelcome and offensive to the victim. The issue revolves on whether they are comfortable with the conduct and hence the court found that the joke was not a joke anymore, it was harassment. It mattered not whether the manager claimed he was only excited and hence the conduct.
It is not the court to find the conduct offensive or amounting to harassment on its own standards but rather analyse the sexual harassment policy of the employer and weigh it against whether the victim is uncomfortable with the conduct, on the one hand, as well as whether the employer followed procedure in dismissal based on their own policy on sexual harassment.
The court was unwavering: It is not the intent of the accused that defines harassment, but the wound it leaves behind. If it is unwanted, unsettling, uninvited—it is wrong. A joke to one can be poison to another. The law does not laugh at such jokes. It listens to the victim. Moreover, this decision draws a final lesson in bold ink: Context is everything. Every workplace has its own code. What’s “funny” in one setting may be fire in another. Power dynamics matter. Seniority must walk hand in hand with responsibility. So let every worker weigh their words. Let every leader measure their conduct.
One careless comment could cost a career. One moment of misjudged familiarity could stretch into years of regret. Every organisation needs a Sexual Harassment Policy as early as today. This judgment is a wake-up call to both employers and employees. Having a clear sexual harassment policy isn’t just good practice, it’s the law for larger organisations. More importantly, respect must guide every interaction. What seems harmless to one may deeply affect another. Words and actions carry weight, especially from those in power. A safe workplace starts with awareness, empathy, and the courage to draw clear lines before they are crossed.
In the hallowed halls of justice, Justice Christine Baari of the Employment and Labour Relations Court recently penned a stern reminder—a tale drawn not from fantasy but from a real and sobering clash between duty and conduct.
A case unfolded:
Cooperative Bank versus a former Operations Manager, whose career ended not with thunder, but with whispers and gestures that crossed sacred boundaries.
Dismissed in 2015, the manager sought shelter in court, claiming injustice. Yet, what the court unearthed was a deeper truth.
Two unsettling moments had occurred: One, a touch to the neck and waist, a pat on the back, all while overseeing cash balances at the tellers. Innocent in task, perhaps. But not in contact. The second, words cloaked in jest, telling a nursing mother to hurry, hinting she hadn’t expressed enough milk. That comment struck deeper than intended.
The teller, WO, messaged him and expressed her discomfort. He apologised. But apologies, though tender, do not erase the harm.
Certain important issues are key to the general public and the employers in this case.
First, the Employment Act Section 6 requires that any employers with 20 or more employees must have a Sexual Harassment Policy in order to deal with incidents of any sexual harassment and ensure the work environment is free of it. This means, it is a violation and act of omission if you are an employer with such number of employees and have no policy.
This is likely to expose you since in case of any claims, the court will find that your work environment was not safe and the employees had no way of knowing what constitutes sexual harassment in that work place. Further, in the absence of such policy, it inconceivable that the employee would have internal recourse before proceeding to court. This is not to say the employers with less than 20 employees should not have sexual harassment policies. As a precaution they should but not as a legal obligation.
Sexual harassment policy
Secondly, the court found that what amounts to sexual harassment depends not on the intention of the one from which the conduct emanates. What is key is whether the conduct is unpalatable, unwelcome and offensive to the victim. The issue revolves on whether they are comfortable with the conduct and hence the court found that the joke was not a joke anymore, it was harassment. It mattered not whether the manager claimed he was only excited and hence the conduct.
It is not the court to find the conduct offensive or amounting to harassment on its own standards but rather analyse the sexual harassment policy of the employer and weigh it against whether the victim is uncomfortable with the conduct, on the one hand, as well as whether the employer followed procedure in dismissal based on their own policy on sexual harassment.
The court was unwavering: It is not the intent of the accused that defines harassment, but the wound it leaves behind. If it is unwanted, unsettling, uninvited—it is wrong. A joke to one can be poison to another. The law does not laugh at such jokes. It listens to the victim. Moreover, this decision draws a final lesson in bold ink: Context is everything. Every workplace has its own code. What’s “funny” in one setting may be fire in another. Power dynamics matter. Seniority must walk hand in hand with responsibility. So let every worker weigh their words. Let every leader measure their conduct.
One careless comment could cost a career. One moment of misjudged familiarity could stretch into years of regret. Every organisation needs a Sexual Harassment Policy as early as today. This judgment is a wake-up call to both employers and employees. Having a clear sexual harassment policy isn’t just good practice, it’s the law for larger organisations. More importantly, respect must guide every interaction. What seems harmless to one may deeply affect another. Words and actions carry weight, especially from those in power. A safe workplace starts with awareness, empathy, and the courage to draw clear lines before they are crossed.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
By Ndong Evance