The action taken by the management of the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) against the employee of a concessionaire, almost a year after she alleged that she was sexually harassed by a senior CJIA manager almost makes no sense until one considers it in the light of male privilege and the downside of this, which is discrimination against women.
Last week, the CJIA management issued a press release in which it stated that a senior manager had proceeded on leave owing to a police investigation into an allegation of sexual misconduct and that his accuser’s airport security credentials had been withdrawn. The CJIA management had also stated in the release that the allegation was a year old, had previously been investigated by airport management, “but no evidence was found for further action to be pursued”. So why then did the CJIA act against the accuser? Why was the accuser’s security clearance withdrawn? Did the accuser somehow suddenly pose a security risk? The CJIA management’s terse press release explained nothing.
Days later, however, the fog lifted after the accuser spoke with this newspaper. What she related amounts to at least three counts of sexual harassment. She alleged that the senior manager hugged her, prevented her from leaving his office and kissed her, all without her consent. The first, she claimed, was in response to her receiving news about a death in her family. While the alleged action by the manager in that instance might have been consolatory, it was inappropriate. And because it was allegedly followed by two deliberate, overt methods of harassment, its intent would definitely be questionable.
Workplace sexual harassment is pervasive, and it is a global issue. It is defined as a form of unlawful sex discrimination that is unwelcome and can be of a verbal, non-verbal, visual or physical nature. It affects working conditions and can create a hostile or fearful work environment. It includes but is not limited to making sexual or sex-based jokes or innuendoes; threatening a person for rejecting sexual advances; impeding a person’s movements; kissing, hugging or stroking someone; leering or looking suggestively at a person’s body and sharing posters, drawings, pictures, screensavers or emails of a sexual nature.
It can sometimes be difficult to prove sexual harassment, because predators are usually careful not to make their moves in the open where there might be witnesses. What they are though is true to form and therefore likely to have more than a single victim.
The young woman told this newspaper that she reported the incident the day after it occurred during which she met Chief Executive Officer Ramesh Ghir and the airport’s human resources manager and was told that the matter would be investigated. This was at the end of July last year. It was not until almost a year later on June 7, this year that she was informed via WhatsApp, she claimed, that the matter had been addressed.
There are several questions that any normal person would immediately ask. The most pressing would be why it took 11 months to investigate an allegation of sexual harassment. That is a very long time, even for Guyana. What is disturbing is that at no time during that protracted investigation was the accuser asked any further questions or to provide details or evidence or even quizzed again about the allegation she had made. Furthermore, despite this being the age of technology, there is no way a person making such a serious accusation should have been informed of the conclusion into its investigation via WhatsApp.
These might or might not be among the reasons the young woman felt she needed to make an official police report, which apparently led to her losing her security clearance. Unless the CJIA management can advance a clear and reasonable explanation as to why it was necessary to withdraw the young woman’s security credentials, then its action was simply discriminatory and abhorrent and should probably be tested in a court of law.
The CJIA board might also want to look into the security clearance withdrawal issue while it is reviewing “all policies, protocols, regulations, and practices that govern conduct and engagements in the workplace”, as per the statement it issued after its June 21 meeting. And while its moves to make the CJIA “a safe workplace for all, especially women and other vulnerable social groups” including hiring external specialists and consultants are welcome, surely all of this should have been in place already. Instead, it took a full-blown crisis before the CJIA board realised that its staff concessionaires and contractors needed to be trained as regards workplace sexual harassment. We are fated to continue shooting ourselves in the foot if we persist in the belief that we are excelling when we construct shiny new projects, but neglect to build the all-round capacity of our human resources.
