Landmark case ruling on sexual harassment

disciplinary hearing for sexually harassing Miss Chipo Karwi, a support technician at the firm.
Sexual harassment constitutes unfair labour practice.
In dismissing Mr Wande from employment, Scottco handled the case in terms of the grievance procedure as per Statutory Instrument 102 of 2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement: Textile industry. Miss Karwi had filed a complaint of verbal abuse against Mr Wande on July 2, 2010 while she was working on his computer in his office.
Miss Karwi reported that Mr Wande approached her and said, “I wish I could fall and land on your lips” and she showed her disgruntlement at this by leaving his office that instant.
And as a warning, Miss Karwi said she told Mr Wande that she would ignore his statement as she walked out. Miss Karwi later returned to Mr Wande’s office to finish the computer installation she had initiated. This time around, Mr Wande was “fired up” and told her that the clothes she was wearing were going to give him “an erection all day long” and that she should try not to look so pretty at work.
“This being the latest incident of this kind of behaviour is only one of the many occasions where Mr Wande has abused his authority and disrespected me,” said Miss Karwi in her complaint filed with company’s management.
“Often he used to express his desires to start a relationship with me but has since stopped doing so because I always rejected his advances. But, of late he has resorted to using crude pick-up lines like the one just described above . . .”
Mr Wande was not happy with the manner in which his case was handled and raised several technicalities. The parties agreed to have the matter referred for arbitration after conciliation failed and a certificate of no settlement was issued.
The company, which was being represented by Mr Succeed Takundwa of Takundwa and Company, maintained that Mr Wande had committed a serious offence of sexual harassment, which warranted dismissal. In this regard the company acted lawfully to fire him.
But in his defence, Mr Wande argued that what he did was culturally correct and women pretended to refuse advances when in fact they were agreeable to sexual relationship.
Mr Wande also argued that allegations levelled against him were based on hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible.
He further argued that the alleged unwelcome intentions to start a relationship were unfounded.
He said there was no persistence on the part of the appellant as the proposal took place on  two days during the three-day period covered by the skype communication. He argued that there was no persistence hence no sexual harassment.
After hearing arguments from both parties’ lawyers the arbitrator Mr G Fresh found no merit in Mr Wande’s defence.
“I am not convinced that Miss Karwi was not sexually harassed . . . She said in no uncertain terms that the conduct of seeking sexual attention was offensive to her and Mr Wande persisted. As a manager Mr Wande should have known this is unacceptable,” said Mr Fresh.
Mr Fresh also noted that sexual harassment was a sensitive issue which occurs when there are two people. 
He found no basis why Miss Karwi would lie against Mr Wande and fabricate such a story.
“In the final analysis I find that on a balance of probabilities Mr Wande committed an unfair labour practice of sexual harassment on Miss Karwi,” ruled Mr Fresh.
Mr Wande challenged the arbitrator’s ruling but the Labour Court president Mr Custom Kachambwa last Friday upheld the dismissal of Mr Wande.
However, Mr Samuel Deme from the Legal Aide directorate who represented Mr Wande yesterday said he had been instructed to appeal against the Labour Court ruling.