Female employees asked to undress
Female employees at an undisclosed workplace were asked to undress in order to prove they were not menstruating after a sanitary towel was spotted in a public area.
This was one of the complaints dealing with various aspects of gender and race discrimination investigated by the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality last year.
The NCPE's annual report says that, acting on information it had received, the commission had decided to investigate the case of sexual harassment involving the female workers who had been ordered to undress.
The company under investigation had admitted that the event did take place. However, it pleaded that "the person in authority" responsible for such harassment had acted under provocation.
The commission found such behaviour amounted to sexual harassment and asked the company to implement a policy against sexual harassment at the workplace and to provide its employees with training in this respect. Another case of sexual harassment at the workplace consisted of a rhyme, in Maltese and taken from a play, that was found in a cabinet in an office by a female employee who felt offended and degraded by the verses.
The employer recognised this as amounting to harassment and the commission concluded it was indeed sexual harassment causing offence and humiliation.
It also commended the employer for taking appropriate action by ordering the immediate removal of such rhyme, admonishing the perpetrator and seeking a written apology from the same perpetrator.
In another case, this time dealing with gender discrimination at the workplace, the NCPE acted upon a complaint and investigated the conditions under which security and escort duties were assigned to employees.
It resulted that the manner in which such security and escort duties were distributed by the persons in management brought about a situation whereby female employees, although trained, were excluded from such duties with the consequence that any monetary benefits linked to the work were being paid only to male employees.
The company under investigation pleaded that, due to the potential risks involved in escort duties, it "believes the assignment of male security guards provides the most appropriate protection" and, moreover, that facilities at the locations where such escort duties were to be carried out were poor.
The commission concluded that this practice amounted to gender discrimination and asked the company to take all necessary action to remove such practices.
Under gender discrimination in access to employment, the NCPE investigated a call for employment as a dental assistant. Although the call did not indicate any preference as to whether the applicant was male or female, upon seeking further information, the complainant was informed that the dental clinic would only consider female applicants.
The employer pleaded that it was its policy that all chair-side dental assistants would be female and that this was the norm throughout the European Union in the case of dental clinics.
The commission said this was gender discrimination and asked the company to refrain from any such discriminatory practices.
The reports also mentions cases of indirect discrimination due to family responsibilities.
Acting upon a complaint, the NCPE investigated the conditions contained in a call for promotions within the public service which included the requirement that the applicant must have been in continuous service for a number of months. The complainant was thus excluded as she was working on a reduced hour schedule due to family responsibilities. The commission concluded that such criterion amounted to indirect discrimination.
After discussions, the Public Service Commission undertook to address the matter by amending the criterion of eligibility so that the years of service required for one to be eligible would be aggregate in cases in which the applicants had a break in their service.
The reports says that the commission was invited to participate in talks over a collective agreement in order to ensure that the conditions of employment agreed respected the principle of gender equality and ensured respect for employees having family responsibilities.
The annual report, which was tabled in Parliament, will be discussed during a business breakfast tomorrow.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
46 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
GEORGE LATO
Mar 8th 2009, 01:33
Is this Malta in the 21st. century or at some long forgotten time during the dark ages? Has the culprit yet been accused of serious sex abuse and named and shamed yet? Why not launch a clip on YouTupbe or Twitter with the names and pictures of those involved? The company sanctioning this sort of behaviour should be made to pay hefty compensation to each of the individuals involved.
p.grima
Mar 8th 2009, 00:51
This is a very serious case especially if this unnamed company processes or handles foodstuffs or beverages. This article does not specify. The unnecessary risk of contamination by direct or indirect contact with used sanitary towels left lying around is enormous. If this workplace is a restaurant, have it closed immediately, and please let us know which one it is.
Making people undress does not prove the guilt. Anyone can take a used sanitary towel (even someone else's) from a bin and put it on exhibition (phew).
Name and shame the culprit/s if found. Chances are s/he will not do it again.
Esme Delmote
Mar 7th 2009, 22:53
These ladies should have refused to undress point blank. I for one would have laughed at my bosses faces and asked them if they would like to strip. Maltese never cease to amaze me. This should never have happened. It is absolutely disgusting.
Joe Fenech
Mar 7th 2009, 19:56
Why should a company that has gone to such shallowness be given anonymity? Why doesn't the primeminister take any action on this brutality that's shaming Malta. After the Nadur carnival comedy, we have to face this one!
S. Vella
Mar 7th 2009, 19:11
@L. Galea
Wake up and smell the roses - Communism failed and it failed miserably.
All I can say: Name and Shame the company and persons who authorised this. Let public opinion crucify them where it hurts most - in their pocket.
Joseph Pace
Mar 7th 2009, 18:17
@ Matthew Gatt
Please read my comment again. It is all about gender equality and nothing else. My point is that any form of abuse must be considered as such whatever gender the perpetrator and the victim are.
There are certain stereotypes that are difficult to break, but must be broken if we are to go for gender equality. If I say "peadophile" everyone will assume I'm referring to a man, why? Can a man who is refused a job at a perfumery claim gender discrimination? If a woman gropes a man, will it be treated as a serious case of sexual haressment? Is a man hitting a woman the same as a woman hitting a man?
So I spell it out to you again, no distinction should be made whether the persons involved were male or female, whatever the issue, that to me is gender equality.
Joe Fenech
Mar 7th 2009, 18:11
Malta doesn't stop surprising! I have never come across such brutality and indecency in an European country! I think we should really be questioning ourselves about who we are? : Talibans or Europeans.
Emma Xerri
Mar 7th 2009, 16:20
@ J. Oatmon
This outdated mentality you speak of is what people should be adopting. It is funny how through media and advertising propoganda, the poor and working classes have come to identify with the rich.
The facts prove otherwise. In the unprecedented economic growth of the last 30 years, statisitics prove that the poor have gotten poorer and the middle class has dwindled and shrunk. However, the top 1% of the population, the richest, have gotten even richer and richer and have to work even less for it.
Now you tell me that this is not class warefare coming from the top?
Calling something Soviet or Socialist should not upset people, no more that it bothers the exponents of rampant and unchecked Capitalism, (which by the way ignore many economic safeguards that both Adam Smith and David Riccardo, the two godheads of a capitalist economy, said should be in place to safeguard jobs, the environment and distribution of wealth), to be called what they truely and really are, Fascist.
Richard Borg
Mar 7th 2009, 15:11
and what difference does it make anyway whether anybody is menstruating on the workplace or not??? And if it were a sanitary, work-related, issue and the person who asked the employees to undress was a General Practitioner would it still be harassment. What is acceptable and where do you draw a line in such a situation? Can the Times investigate and inform??
Matthew Gatt
Mar 7th 2009, 14:58
@ Pace
I agree with the general drift of your comment; men or women should not be made to undress.. Granted. But clearly you have missed the point of the argument. The article here is about gender discrimination and not forced nudity. And insofar as gender discrimination is rampant in Malta, then more safeguards are required to avoid such incidents from taking place. Moreover, when similar incidents DO take place then we need MUCH MORE than a simple warning!!
Unfortunately so far political will to combat discrimination has been lacking. It is about time that Maltese society evolves from cultural and historic patriarchism towards true gender equality.
M A Bezzina
Mar 7th 2009, 13:13
Maybe NCPE could not give the name of the "undisclosed workplace", but i think justice was not done by investigating and writing a report. This workplace should be named, at least unofficially (and not by NCPE) through the national grapevine. Times of Malta has quality journalists who last year investigated cases that were covered under "omerta", i hope they'll investigate this case too.
Joseph Pace
Mar 7th 2009, 12:42
@ Mark Anthony Fenech
Gender discrimination is mentioned in this article and equality is all about being politically correct, get used to it.
Nobody, male or female can ask anybody, male or female to undress except medical professionals for valid reasons.
Even amongst these comments there is a certain acceptance that it makes a difference if it was a lady who asked them to undress, or that it would not have been such a big deal if the employees were men. Even the title suggests that the fact that these happen to be female employees makes it a more serious matter. I beg to differ.
J BORG
Mar 7th 2009, 12:25
WERE THEY JUST ASKED TO UNDRESS?
DID THEY ACTUALLY UNDRESS?
don't they have a union representative at this workplace?
do these people do what they are told at work?
where is your self esteeem ladies?
Melissa Bagley
Mar 7th 2009, 12:03
DO they seriously think that if any of the employees had been menstruating, she would have been the one who left it in a public place? Narrow mindedness at its best - they should have made the name of the company public, not hide it! Bet the company was willing to pay hush money too!
And ........wept.....
Andrew Agius
Mar 7th 2009, 11:32
@J Pace and P Grima
The reason behind the undressing clearly vindivates the title - why would male employees be asked to prove they weren't menstruating?And, let's face it, it got us to read the article...
Mark-Anthony Fenech
Mar 7th 2009, 11:18
@ p. grima:
don't lambaste us with more political correctness.. What's wrong with the title? They were female so what? Isn't the paper's job to report the news? If they were male then the title would be male employees, if mixed then just employees..
Give us all a rest from this cursed phenomenon of political correctness please!
J Oatmon
Mar 7th 2009, 09:42
@ L.Galea - "The first thing that this proves is that workers have become once again slaves of their employers under the capitalist regime".
Wow!
that is real old style soviet rhetoric from 50 years ago, you need to get into the new millenium, and drop the old outdated "them and us" attitude - it is 'us and us' now in the world.
p.grima
Mar 7th 2009, 00:48
@-Joseph Pace-
"The heading of this article is in itself discriminatory. Would it have been less serious if male employees were asked to undress? so why make the distinction?
Maybe "Employees asked to undress" is less eye-catching." ...and non-discriminatory too, may I add!
I totally agree with you. That is what equality is all about.
I am disappointed by this paper about this.
p.grima
Mar 7th 2009, 00:30
First of all, is "the person in authority" male or female? The article does not clarify this. If it was a female then it is probably not a case of sexual harassment in the first place. I do not want to take anybody's sides in this.
Marianna Galea Xuereb
Mar 6th 2009, 22:26
@Jennifer Soames
“… hope this man is slapped silly by his wife or mother…..”
What wishful thinking! Personal experience has shown me that - in Malta at least – several Wives and mothers become so proud and conceited when hubby or sonny becomes “imlahhaq ta!”, “jikkmanda”, “ghandu n-nies tahtu” etc. that they would go to any lengths to protect whatever evil or harassment he committed in order to keep up appearances and preserve their self perceived high status of “il-mara tal-kbir” or “omm il-boss”. Even in cases where bosses severely harass and abusively demand sexual favours from female employees, the wives of such bullies/criminals tend to prefer to vilify the victims and accuse them of lies or provocation/seduction than to even admit that their husband was actually guilty of such abuse because then they would be forced to think of themselves as the “cuckolded” wife. Abusive male bosses know that their wife would rather play the role of “purcinella kornuta” than let it be know that hubby chose to try his luck with other women. That is precisely why they dare play the “feudal lord” at the work place.
Joe Fenech
Mar 6th 2009, 21:02
Ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!! Malta is one weird country.
P. Pavia
Mar 6th 2009, 17:47
I have a question for the men reading this running commentary: What advice would you have given the female employees when they were asked to undress? and to the male person of authority?
Jennifer Soames
Mar 6th 2009, 17:35
"the person in authority" responsible for such harassment had acted under provocation." HOW? did the women employees provoke the "person in authority" by daringly saying search me if you want proof? Even if the person was provoked, he should not have ordered them to undress. This is one of the very rare occasions when i hope this man is slapped silly by his wife or mother when they find out what he did at work.
Miriam Webster
Mar 6th 2009, 13:40
@apgrech
From your comment to S. Calleja, I see that you understand the gravity of the supervisor's criminal) act. And yes, the worst that could have happened for non-compliance would have been dismissal. On these points, I agree with you. But I sense that you don't understand why victims of all types of abuse (whether inflicted upon themselves or others) comply with authority figures' orders, and why legislation must be enacted.
To a third-person observer, complying with the order does not make any sense, but under the situational duress of an authority figure's influence, rational thinking goes out the window. The scientific data I was referring to is based on classic psychological experiments performed by Stanley Milgram (lookup Milgram Experiment on Wikipedia).
If that seems too academic, download http://cogprints.org/4566/1/ObedienceInTheCockpit.pdf and read pages 8-12. You will see that under the duress of an authority figure's influence, when the worst that could have happened to a First Officer would have been dismissal, by refusing to challenge authority, he actually followed his Captain's orders to his own death.
Joseph Pace
Mar 6th 2009, 12:39
The heading of this article is in itself discriminatory. Would it have been less serious if male employees were asked to undress? so why make the distinction?
Maybe "Employees asked to undress" is less eye-catching.
Carmel Saliba
Mar 6th 2009, 12:39
The case of these female employees was one of the complaints investigated by the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality last year.
Now this case is closed and I expect that the names of those responsible should be published. If there was anything abnormal the case should have been reported.
We can never protect such abuses. The case was revealed because, I assume, there was the beginning of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality.
Where the police informed?
Joseph Schembri
Mar 6th 2009, 11:55
Only doctors or nurses (if possible of the same sex as the client) should ever ask someone to undress: and this should be done in a comfortable and non threatening environment
A 16 year old girl I know, going to the first party in her life, was asked to undress by a police officer (I assume that she was female) to supposedly check for drugs. I find such actions despicable and the poor girl was quite traumatised. She had never had anything stronger than a shandy in her life for heaven's sake!
Sarah Camilleri
Mar 6th 2009, 10:52
Why is the name of the workplace withheld? And why isn't criminal action being taken against the company director?
This is a criminal case and not merely sexual harassment.
S. Calleja
Mar 6th 2009, 10:52
@ apgrech
So much effort just to determine who is menstruating? lol! And then what?
All the employer needed to do was to speak with all the ladies and ask them that whoever did it not to do it again for obvious hygenic and customer-related reasons. End of story.
L..Galea
Mar 6th 2009, 09:16
The first thing that this proves is that workers have become once again slaves of their employers under the capitalist regime.
The Union representative should have told the management to shove its orders.
This is nothing more than an abuse of authority and humiliation of female employees.
The perpetrators should be severely punished.
Period (pun intended)
Brian Fenech
Mar 6th 2009, 09:06
Give us the name of the workplace... Why hiding the name when such an awful, humiliating act taken place! What are we in stone henge? They don't need teaching, because they know they shouldn't have done that! Who did it must be fired, disqualified if director forever and jailed!!! Give us the name!!
D. Borg
Mar 6th 2009, 08:35
It's better if the police take action on this perverse person... This is sexual abuse at its best.
Christine Evans
Mar 6th 2009, 08:19
I have NEVER heard anything so disgusting, HOW dare this person humiliate and degrade these women. I hope all them women involved take this Horrible Horrible person through the higest court in the EU. THIS WAS SEXUAL ABUSE.
apgrech
Mar 5th 2009, 21:44
@S Calleja: They could take sample from the sanitary pad they found and ask the ladies to give a sample of saliva but, even here, the ladies SHOULD NOT comply. If DNA is conducted abroad, then the hero should foot the bill himself.
How can anyone be charged with something if they have no proofs? I'm surprised this supervisor didn't end up with some broken teeth when he issued the order. Were these very young women?
This idiot should be charged, prosecuted and jailed.
apgrech
Mar 5th 2009, 21:34
@Miriam Webster: Ok, let's call it stupid fear. What is the worse that can happen if the women refuse? Get fired? Then they could fight the idiot in court.
If the women were not guilty, how can they prove them gulty? What happens was gross abuse, period and yes, if the women complied with the "order" I'd call them stupid.
S. Calleja
Mar 5th 2009, 17:29
@ Daniel Russell, Wilfred Camillieri
This was NOT invasion of privacy. Invasion of privacy is when somebody obtains information about your life without your approval (e.g. address, phone number, work, salary, etc).
Nor it is a case of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is when a work collegue or supervisor passes sexual remarks or touches you at work, or tries to get involved with you personally without your consent.
This was much more serious then invasion of privacy. This was sexual abuse, and the police should be taking measures, not the NCPE.
Jeffrey Mallia
Mar 5th 2009, 16:59
Did this incident happen in Sudan ? Because the article didn't say. But I'm positively sure it didn't happen here in Malta, an EU member state.
Daniel Russell
Mar 5th 2009, 16:32
Just one word...dispicable.
I hope they punish the boss concerned as he has just broken every EU human rights law and possibly several more. Wilfred Camillieri, spot on, its an invasion of privacy
S. Calleja
Mar 5th 2009, 15:14
@ apgrech
"They could have had dna tests instead of acting so irrationally."
Can you please enlighten me as to how one can use DNA tests to determine if one is menstruating? Are you even aware that we do not have a DNA test laboritory in Malta, but samples have to be sent abroad and results take a few weeks to come out?
This is not even a case of sexual harassment. This is a case of sexual abuse.
Wilfred L Camilleri
Mar 5th 2009, 14:58
Whether the supervisor responsible was male or female is irrelevant. It was an invasion of privacy and harassment of the affected employees. The person responsible should be disciplined and the company should be forced to apologize and compensate the affected employees.
Tanja Cilia
Mar 5th 2009, 13:56
The mind boggles - who's to say that it was not a male employee, including those who were in a position to take disciplinary action, who had deposited this item in order to create a furore, and trouble for the female staff complement? Does the public have access to this "public area"? Fact is often stranger than fiction - and in any case "acting under provocation" could have stopped at searching handbags - with a couple of witnesses present - for "evidence". I would go further than accusing this person of sexual harassment and discrimination; he is a sub-human specimen, a sadist who enjoys the discomfiture of others. Have the females been compensated for emotional distress?Or must they sue for this to happen?
J.F. Vassallo Ebejer
Mar 5th 2009, 13:10
What is extremely disappointing is that the company for whom this dumb “cowboy” works (or worked…) actually tried to justify the incident by claiming “provocation”.
Do we, in this country, really have company directors/owners who are actually willing to justify such a shameful action?
Had they been anywhere near decent and professional they would have issued an immediate apology to the staff and sacked whoever it was there and then.
Furthermore the name of the person who put the female employees through this shameful event should be named and shamed – he/she should never be allowed to hold a supervisory position again for the rest of his/her working life.
Miriam Webster
Mar 5th 2009, 12:24
@apgrech
Hopefully, they did not comply. But that is where my agreement with you ends, sir.
To say that they would be "stupid" to comply is to ignore the fact (supported by reams of scientifically gathered evidence) that the psychological mechanism of compliance with orders from authority figures is extremely complex. Under the duress of such situations, these women may have felt that non-compliance would have had much worse consequences.
Fear, not stupidity, sir. This is precisely why legislations has to be clear and punishment severe. In many countries, proven cases sexual harassment is cause for dismissal. In this case, the perpetrator claimed provocation, but I cannot fathom why this would be considered justification for his act. Since no mention of penalty is made, presumably he is still employed, and still in a position of authority, where he can strike again.
We have such a long way to go.
Joe Cordina
Mar 5th 2009, 12:23
Such degrading treatment merits a criminal charge and dismissal from work to the perpetrator. A zero tollerance should be adopted at all times.
d. borg
Mar 5th 2009, 12:08
I was shocked to read this heading and the article. I hope this 'person in authority' was punished by her employer for bullying and degrading these employees. I hope these employees did not obey her and reported her immediately to her superiors. Hekk baqa jonqos, isiru dawn l-affarijiet fuq il-post tax-xoghol!
apgrech
Mar 5th 2009, 10:48
When such serious cases occur, the name of the culprits should be published. They could have had dna tests instead of acting so irrationally.
I hope the women were not stupid enough to obey the "order."