Case: Maple Leaf Shoes Ltd., Legal Challenges

essay A+
  • Words: 1199
  • Category: Shoes

  • Pages: 5

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

The Ontario Human Rights Code states that sexual torment occurs in state of affairss when one person is trouble oneselfing the other by stating or making unwanted or unwelcome things of a sexual or gender-related nature. This could be characterize in footings of inappropriate touching. violative comments about single. sexual suggestions. unsuitable remarks about organic structure parts. exposure to sexually violative images. verbal maltreatment due to the gender. etc. It is besides considered to be a signifier of illegal favoritism and is a signifier of sexual and psychological maltreatment.

In footings of the instance. this is a clear instance of sexual torment because Rosetta is one of the two adult females in the section that every forenoon got called by her male colleagues as Italian rice. intending Italian rice with gravy. and teased with Italian salutations. In add-on. on occasion they asked her what she was making with her Italian fellow and whether she had a good clip with him the dark before. Furthermore. one of the colleagues asked her whether she prefer Italian over Canadian work forces and on occasion they aloud bragged to each other about their experience with their girlfriends so that Rosetta can hear it. merely to abash her. Furthermore. her male colleagues told a soiled athlete and asked Rosetta if she understood or if she could state one every bit good.

Normally. sexual torment is a form of behavior that happens often over a period of clip. In this instance. there is a form of different incidents that occurred over the period of Rosetta’s employment. which created a poisoned consequence on the topographic points where she worked. This type of sexual remarks made her feel uncomfortable. in some state of affairss even cry. which indicated that the work environment is poisoned.

Although. Rosetta tried to do the torment halt. it is non her duty entirely. Al besides has to do certain that sexual torment does non happen in his workplaces because sexualized environment can make ambiances that encourage more serious and direct sexual torment. such as sexual joking N this instance.

If in the hereafter more adult females would hold places in this section. this can make lessening in productiveness. addition in team struggle and moreover. lead to diminish in success at run intoing fiscal ends because of squad struggle. Furthermore. it can make occupation dissatisfaction. loss of employees from surrenders. and increase absenteeism by employees. In add-on. the cognition that torment is permitted can damage ethical criterions and subject in the organisation in general. Overtime. employees will lose regard and trust in their supervisors who encourage and/or ignored the job. which can take to a negative image of the company and create legal actions against the organisation. The ignorance of the job can make big costs to organisation through damaged morale. cases and absenteeism.

Peoples who harass will hold no grounds to halt unless they are challenged. Therefore. it is necessary to back up and promote Rosetta to come frontward. Eva can offer suggestions how to work out the job but merely Rosetta must take what will be the best pick for her. Furthermore. Eva can promote Rosetta to seek aid from a counselor and supply her with helpful telephone Numberss ; nevertheless. it’s up to Rosetta to do her ain determinations. In footings of their conversations. Eva should cognize that conversations that were between Eva and Rosetta are confidential and Eva can non merely travel and state it to person. The lone clip Eva may hold to state person about Rosetta’s job without her permission is if Rosetta is in immediate physical danger. which is non the instance in this state of affairs. Yet. ignoring or minimising the job will non do it travel off.

To reason. it’s up to Rosetta to do complains to allow authorization or to prosecute a legal actions against the company in this affair. Eva can merely morally back up and rede Rosetta but can non make any legal actions for her. The lone think that Eva can seek to make is to inform a human resources section in the organisation about the state of affairs and inquire for the proper probe about it. The other option that Eva can see is to hold a audience with the attorney about this whole state of affairs ; nevertheless. she should non state any names. All of these options have a good opportunity for success. every bit long as all of them conducted in conformity of jurisprudence.

Al’s first duty in this instance is to decently cover with workplace sexual torment issues involve the appropriate distribution of the organization’s policy on sexual torment in the workplace. However. he did non take it serious when Rosetta complained to him. therefore she was forced to end her employment.

The other duty that Al should hold carried is to demo Rosetta that he. as a supervisor of the organisation have responded to kick with the procedure of forestalling sexual torment in the workplace and are covering with it in a timely and effectual mode when it does happen. Al besides felled to transport it suitably. moreover. he blamed Rosetta to be excessively sensitive and that she takes herself excessively earnestly. And based on his doctrine. such as to be able to express joy at ourselves now and the. it shows that he encourages this type of behavior in the work topographic point.

Furthermore. Al has to take attack to sexual torment where it involves the development of an internal system for the just and balanced probe of every ailment of this nature. Every ailment should be taken earnestly. Employees must be cognizant that they are free to set frontward ailments about sexual torment in their workplace and that they will be free from revenge and bullying as a consequence. They should be encouraged to utilize and trust upon the company’s internal ailment mechanism and declaration system.

In this measure. Al besides felled to follow the appropriate route. His behavior with employees encourages them to jest around. which may deter other employees to kick due to fear of revenge and bullying. if Al tells employees about complain.

It is perfectly critical that employer who has non yet adopted appropriate policies and attitudes towards sexual torment in the workplace join the motion towards zero tolerance for these workplace jobs.

It is critical for the employer non merely live up to their legal duty when covering with issues of sexual torment. but possibly more significantly is to demo that they have done something. Consequently. proactive stairss are to make sexual torment policies and good publicized ailment processs set. which would make the right tone for the riddance of sexual torment in the workplace. As a bi-product. the same seeable processs will besides assist to cut down the employer’s possible exposure to vicarious liability for the Acts of the Apostless of employees.


Ontario Women’s Justice Network. 6 Jan. 2002. Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children. 10 Feb. 2006

The Ontario Human Rights Commission. 11 Feb. 2007. The Ontario Human Rights Commission. 11 Feb. 2007

Ontario Women’s Directorate. 1 May 2003. Government of Ontario. 9 Feb. 2006

The Canadian Human Rights Commission. 9 July 2004. Government of Canada. 9 Feb. 2006.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member