Fired official sent porn, asked woman staff member on dates

DENEL Land Systems was correct in firing one of its managers for the sexual harassment of one of the women employees working in his department, the Labour Court has said.

It turned down an application by the former senior officer, only identified as Mr N, to have the ruling made by an arbitrator in this regard reviewed and set aside.

The court confirmed the ruling made on arbitration, where it was found that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair.

A junior employee who worked in Mr N’s department claimed that he had on multiple occasions asked her on dates, which she politely rebuffed.

She also claimed that he gave her looks that made her uncomfortable and commented about her physical appearance. The last straw, she said, was when Mr N sent pornographic material to her. She said she told him in no uncertain terms that she did not appreciate the offensive images.

Mr N apologised and claimed that the pornographic material was meant for a friend of his, and not for her.

When all of this reached the ears of management, Mr N was charged with allegations of sexual harassment.

At the internal hearing he was found guilty and dismissed. Mr N then referred a dispute to the Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council, claiming that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Having failed to resolve the dispute through conciliation, the bargaining council appointed an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The latter concluded that the dismissal was fair.

But Mr N accused her of bias and said her finding unreasonable; he had not continuously asked her out on dates, he said. With regard to the pornographic material, his lawyer argued that this was not a gross form of sexual harassment and dismissal was too harsh a sanction when compared to lighter sanctions enjoyed by other such offenders.

Judge Graham Moshoana said although Mr N “sparsely disputed” having continuously asked the junior employee on dates, it was common cause that he had sent pornographic material to her.

The judge questioned the defence that the pornography was sent in error.

“It is too much of a fortuity that a pornographic material is delusionally directed to a person who has been asked out countless times,” he said.

Judge Moshoana added that the fact that Mr N apologised did not alter the fact that the woman found the material to be offensive and hurtful.

He said the apology was probably a damage control measure. In dismissing the review, the judge said the decision to fire Mr N remained justifiable, and one that any reasonable decision-maker may reach.