Metro Trains downplayed sexual harassment policies, FWC finds

A transport union has accused Metro Trains of trying to “reinterpret” its enterprise agreement to avoid accountability for its handling of a sexual harassment complaint.

An allegation of sexual harassment and victimisation from an employee of Metro Trains sparked a dispute with the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU) regarding the definition, obligation, and response of the company in question.

The worker in question, alleged to be the victim of sexual harassment and victimisation between March 2024 and January 2025, and April 2025 and August 2025, respectively, first made a complaint of six incidents of alleged sexual harassment to Metro in November 2024, at which the union was present.

Upon returning from leave in January 2025, Metro determined they would no longer be scheduled to work on the same crew as the alleged perpetrator.

Further raising concern about the potential for further incidents, the alleged victim then informed Metro of a separate incident on 27 January, 2025.

Emails between February and April 2025 between senior staff revealed it was advised that, “in reviewing the case, the nature of the complaint against (alleged perpetrator) seems harsh to stand down” and that, in balancing the concerns and Metro’s obligations of applying the principles of fairness and natural justice, it would be unreasonable to require the alleged perpetrator to be impacted by a change of roster, and they would remain until the investigation is concluded.

A further incident was reported on 27 April 2025.

The alleged victim was advised of a formal investigation on 23 May 2025, and an external investigation on 12 June 2025; in the 11 December 2025 hearing, commissioner Julia Fox heard that Metro’s internal investigation regarding the allegation of victimisation and the external investigation into sexual harassment allegations were both ongoing.

Requesting confirmation of whether the alleged perpetrator would remain in the workplace, the RTBU was told they would be, but that Metro would decide at the conclusion of the investigation whether the findings are substantiated, and conduct a risk assessment to determine the risk of continued harassment at work.

The RTBU first filed a complaint with the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission on 9 July 2025.

Another incident was reported on 16 August 2025.

A meeting was conducted on 9 October, at which point the RTBU’s request to change the alleged victim’s working arrangements was not met, with Metro advising it had taken appropriate steps and would only consider mitigations if the allegations were substantiated.

A further incident was reported on 6 November.

In consideration of whether Metro’s actions were consistent with clause 2.30 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) of the Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Lty Rail Operations Enterprise Agreement (2023), Fox said: “The answer to the question for determination is no.”

In filing with the Fair Work Commission, the RTBU claimed Metro sought to rewrite or reinterpret the meaning of “reasonable practicality” when it comes to taking steps in relation to sexual harassment.

Submitting that clause 2.30 is unambiguous, the union specified that Metro in particular breached clause 2.30.3(b): The company will treat all incidents seriously and promptly and investigate allegation of sexual harassment as appropriate; clause 2.30.3(d): The company will take all complaints seriously and in confidence; and clause 2.30.3(e): Employees who raise complaints of sexual harassment must not be victimised for making such a complaint.

Despite Metro’s submission that obligations to take allegations “seriously” and act “promptly” only apply when harassment has been established, the RTBU claimed that there is no distinction and that this potential requirement would be “bizarre”.

Fox accepted this, stating: “I am not persuaded by Metro’s submission that under clause 2.20.2(b) there is no ‘incident’ of sexual harassment until it is substantiated, and therefore no obligation to take [the alleged victim’s] complaint seriously or act promptly.”

However, Fox responded to Metro’s assertion that the clause does not specifically dictate they must undertake an investigation, saying: “I accept that the decision to investigate is ultimately a decision for an employer, albeit done in consideration of the relevant legislative obligations.

“However, I also consider that little if anything turns on this, as the evidence shows Metro has determined to investigate [the alleged victim’s] complaint, and advised [the alleged victim] it was doing so in February 2025.”

Regarding clause 2.30.3(d), Fox similarly said: “I do not consider Metro’s actions have been consistent with taking [the alleged victim’s] sexual harassment, and victimisation complaints seriously.”

Similarly, the RTBU submitted that Metro did not meet its obligations under clause 2.30.3(e), specifically regarding the alleged victimisation by not ensuring the alleged victim did not come into contact with the alleged perpetrator.

On this, Fox said: “I consider Metro’s failure to take reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that [the alleged victim] and [the alleged perpetrator] were separated after [the alleged victim] raised complaints of victimisation amounts to victimisation, and that Metro’s actions were not consistent with clause 2.30.3(e) of the agreement.”

Further in her decision, Fox said: “While I consider it would have been prudent for Metro to stand [the alleged perpetrator] down, especially after the allegations of victimisation were made by [the alleged victim], clause 2.30 does not prescribe an employee be stood down, nor do the legislative obligations require stand down.

“However, that is not to say that a consideration of the other legislative obligations referred to in clause 2.30 may well arrive at a decision to stand down.”

In the conclusion of the findings, Fox said: “There appears to be a distinct lack of understanding, deliberate or otherwise, by Metro of its legal obligations in relation to sexual harassment.”

“In my view, it would be prudent for Metro to undertake a review of its policies, processes and accountabilities, including training of its human resources, legal and senior leadership teams, to ensure that the organisation understands its legal obligations in relation to sexual harassment.”

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.