Sexual Harassment: Vanderwell Contractors Ltd

855 Words4 Pages

Sexual Harassment: Chartrand .Vanderwell Contractors Ltd.
The definition of Sexual harassment in the AHRC is a form of forced unwanted sexual behaviour: verbally, and physically. The effects of this type of harassment infringes the rights of a person. In reference to a workplace: an employee’s position is threatened, elimination of any promotions/salary increases; reduces chances of employment. Including mental and physical consequences, this form of violence discriminates the rights of a person. A report from UNIFEM proves that only 14, including Canada, out of 186 countries placed legislation regarding sexual harassment. More than 90% of Canadian women confessed they have been sexually harassed, some time in their life. A similar amount of …show more content…

through a mutual reference – Maurice Conrad. Jean’s employment at Vanderwell Contractors Ltd. began on August 28, 1995 under the supervision of Maurice. Subsequently to her employment, she was promoted still under the watch of Maurice. Jean and Maurice engaged in a “mutually enjoyed Horseplay” through the first steps of her employment. The misbehaviours gradually stopped, until mid-year of 1997, when Jean came to conclusion that the “Horseplay” was a violation of sexual harassment. Under section 7, and 12 of the Charter, Jean “has the right to life, liberty, and security. She also has the right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Jean does violate section 11 (b) of the Charter because she does not take immediate action in a reasonable time. She files a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights & Citizenship Commission roughly a year later, 1998. The Canadian Human Rights Act secures the rights of Canadians that are victimized in specific situations …show more content…

In the meantime, rumors of Jean and Maurice’s relationship spread. Wayne Lambert, an employee, approved of the rumors quoting Jean whom complains about working with Maurice, while others see the direct harassment. The supervisors, and Vanderwell himself were aware of the rumors, however Vanderwell would not proceed with any complaint, until Jean herself approached Vanderwell. Vanderwell violated section 7 of the Charter, considering he was aware of Jean’s infringement of her rights, he did not protect her right to security. Jean was intimidated, and afraid of termination, resulting in a late approach to file the complaint against Maurice. Despite attempts to stop Maurice, it was hard to believe because “Sexual predators don’t usually approach their victims in the presence of witnesses.” Vanderwell left Maurice with a warning. “Even though he had been talked to by a higher authority in the company, the harassment continued,” Jean explains. Chartrand quits her employment with Vanderwell on August 4, 1998; files a complaint to oppose the company: Ken Vanderwell, and Maurice, under the Alberta Human Rights Code. Consequently, a human rights panel assembled the case. Under Section 24 (2) of the Charter, Jean

Show More
Open Document