A WOMAN clerical worker alleged she was sexually harassed by a male colleague with whom she shared an office.
She found a file in her male colleague's locked desk which she said contained pornographic pictures on to which her head had been superimposed. She said she suffered severe distress and ongoing health problems as a result.
The colleague was suspended and the employer investigated the allegation. The man was then reassigned to the same area of work, but in a different office.
The woman said she continued to suffer health problems as a result of the employer's failure to reassign the man to a different building.
The claim was unsuccessful. An equality officer found that the man "was not acting within the scope of his employment when he maintained a pornographic file in a locked desk; that the woman was not further discriminated against when the alleged harasser was reassigned to the same area of employment; and that the employer did everything possible to assist the claimant once the matter was brought to his attention".
Case 2
A MAN claimed he was discriminated against because he was required to work in the male unit of an Eastern Health Board hospital on a particular day doing special duties, which included dealing with violent or aggressive patients.
The man claimed he could only get a day off when he could be replaced by a male nurse. His union argued that, because demanding and dangerous duties were held to be more appropriate to men, male nurses worked in less favourable conditions than their female colleagues.
The equality officer concluded that he was not discriminated against and female nurses in similar circumstances would not have been treated differently from male nurses.
The officer conceded that none of the female nurses could have provided the nursing services required in this situation.
Case 3
A WOMAN claiming constructive dismissal said she was sexually harassed by a personnel manager.
Her employer was involved in a hamburger restaurant business. The woman's family had a close relationship with the family of the personnel manager and she frequently visited the latter's apartment beside the restaurant to chance into her uniform for work.
She alleged that the personnel manager took advantage of his position and exploited the trust and family friendship that existed. He made advances to her which were extremely offensive and threatening. The allegation was not denied by the manager.
The company argued that the incident was outside normal working hours, outside the employer's premises and therefore outside the control of the employer. The company also argued that the woman was not dismissed.
The Labour Court ruled the claim successful, rejecting the argument that the employer could not be responsible for treatment outside the place of work. The court ordered that the woman be paid £2,000.
