Angelus' Post; HARASSMENT, DEFINITION OF

a) To irritate or torment persistently b) To wear out; exhaust c) To impede and exhaust an enemy by repeated attacks or raids d) Unwelcome behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarasses e) Threatening behavior outside the norms created by society.

Did Intertek Caleb Brett have a clear anti-harassment definition/policy in place when it took the, "appropriate" action against Robert?
Did Intertek Caleb Brett check to see if there was basis to substantiate Rose's harassment claim against Robert and confirm it was made without deliberate malice?

According to Intertek Compliance Code, which is available on the internet for all to see, complaints of violations of the Code should be reported to either a) VP of Compliance or Business Stream Compliance Officer b) employee's superior or member of senior management or internal auditor who shall, in turn, inform the Vice President of Compliance.
According to Investigations & Sanctions, in this same Code, there should be documented procedure for handling of investigations and sanctions, etc.......

There are numerous policies in the education sector having specific definition of and remedy for harassment. Duke University indicates the burden of proof is on the complainant, and harassment complaints must be submitted in writing, including names, dates and details of alleged misconduct defined as harassment. There must be a preponderance of evidence to substantiate the action/s taken.
There may be no negative inference/action taken against the accused if the accused does not take action against allegations.

Written details submitted against Robert should have been given to him in order for him to decide as to whether or not to pursue action against allegations and to substantiate innocence of harassment.


If it appears Intertek Caleb Brett did not act appropriately for both Rose and Robert and instead sought a quick and easy course of action without due investigation to substantiate Rose's false allegations, they are potentially in a world of hurt.
If it appears Intertek Caleb Brett did not follow its own publicly published Compliance Code, the employees should take a "Zero Tolerance Policy" stance and legally file a complaint with the EEOC and any other employment attorney they could find. They should have all managers also sign the very same documents covering ethics, zero tolerance and compliance which employees must sign.

If one should so consider, the action taken against Robert could fall under the category of unethical conduct which breaches portion of #7 in Intertek's Code of Ethics.

Next up: Perjury, Definition of


To be continued..........