Workplace harassment complaints in the civil service are being mishandled, leading to what MPs have described as ‘chaos’ in victim protection. The House human rights committee voiced serious concerns on Friday about the inadequate implementation of the code of practice meant to safeguard individuals from harassment.
Committee chairwoman Irene Charalambides, an MP from Akel, articulated that the existing framework is confusing for victims, with four separate mechanisms to navigate. This complexity results in delays and often deters victims from pursuing their complaints. Charalambides pointed out that the implementation of the code is particularly deficient when the accused holds a high-ranking position within the government.
Referencing a case involving a senior education ministry official accused of sexual harassment, Charalambides noted that the official was not removed from his position until over two years after the complaint was filed. This delay raised questions about the civil service’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
“There are four different mechanisms that a victim may need to turn to. This creates confusion, delays and ultimately discourages victims from proceeding,” Charalambides stated. She revealed that two complaints had been lodged regarding the case, with a third potential complainant choosing not to file due to fears of retaliation.
In her remarks, Charalambides scrutinised whether proper investigations had been conducted by the education ministry, including the actions of the then director general and other officials involved. She demanded clarity on why the necessary disciplinary measures were not submitted to the commissioner for administration, as legally required.
Charalambides highlighted the unique stress victims face when the perpetrator is a superior, which adds psychological pressure to an already challenging process. “The process itself, even when the investigators are women, is a deterrent,” she stated, advocating for simpler procedures and better information to support employees.
In response, Education Minister Athena Michaelidou asserted that the accused official was promptly removed from his duties following the complaint, and a disciplinary investigation was initiated soon after. “Every step was taken based on opinions from the legal service,” she claimed, arguing that the ministry was not obliged to share the case file with the commissioner until the disciplinary process was complete.
However, Zoe Kyriakidou, a legal service officer, contradicted Michaelidou’s statement, insisting that the ministry was required to provide the information to the ombudsman. “A disciplinary process must be completed quickly so as not to violate the constitutional rights of the person against whom a complaint is pending. However, our instructions were clear that the information must be provided,” Kyriakidou emphasised.
Charalambides reiterated that the law clearly mandates the forwarding of necessary data to the commissioner, highlighting a significant disconnect between the ministry’s actions and legal expectations. Independent MP Alexandra Attalidou shared her experience of receiving a misleading response from the education ministry regarding the case, raising further concerns about transparency.
Attalidou described the environment as ‘hostile’, dissuading potential victims from coming forward. “I was told that the disciplinary procedure had been completed and that no disciplinary offence had been established. However, a year later, I was informed that criminal prosecution was underway,” she stated, urging for better protection for complainants.
Education ministry director general George Pantelis maintained that staff were well-versed in the relevant procedures and equality committees. He acknowledged that overlaps in responsibilities among various bodies handling harassment complaints contributed to the prevailing confusion surrounding the process.
As a response to these ongoing concerns, the committee is now working on recommendations for legislative changes aimed at better protecting victims of workplace harassment and streamlining the complaint process. A recent investigation by the Cyprus News Agency (CNA) revealed that many sexual harassment complaints within the public sector go unrecorded due to the absence of a unified data collection system.
Maria Kleanthous, head of the department of public administration and personnel, noted that while an electronic complaints registration system was proposed, it was never realised due to contractual issues. Consequently, complaints are currently managed by multiple entities, including the House human rights committee, the labour department, and the ombudsman.
Data collection on harassment cases is limited to those that lead to disciplinary action and is retained solely by the public service commission, which does not disclose specific details about the offences. This lack of transparency further complicates efforts to ensure accountability and support for victims.
