Sexual harasser’s board position ‘disgraceful’, FWC says

A project manager was forced to resign after she discovered a superior had taken an intimate video of her, the Fair Work Commission has found.

An application for general protections relating to the self-termination of a victim of sexual harassment has been able to prove dismissal under section 365 under the Fair Work Act.

A communications and project manager claimed another employee informed her Leslie Schultz, director of the WA Mirning People Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (WAMPAC), had been “filming your arse”.

The colleague said: “I was sitting next to him and happened to look at his phone. You know how Les always has his phone out and is always filming? But when I looked at the phone your arse was in the centre of the screen.”

The victim claims to have told another colleague before retreating away from everyone during a panic attack.

She also informed WAMPAC lawyer Kimberley Swift, who engaged an investigative consultant shortly after, and then took several days of personal leave.

Further claims that Schultz touched her on the hip, made a comment that he would be her Valentine’s date should her boyfriend not be able to, and commented on her appearance sparked a second investigation.

FWC deputy president Lyndall Dean noted the board’s lack of action “had the effect of bringing about the end of the applicant’s employment”.

According to the applicant, the board initially banned Schultz from attending the Perth office where she worked at, but she later learnt via email that he was provided with a final warning and allowed to attend the board and committee meetings digitally. She was told Schultz would also need to provide notice should he need to attend the office.

WAMPAC CEO D’Antoine said he would take steps to ensure appropriate systems and processes were put in place to avoid a similar incident in the future.

He added that the decision was based on the findings of the investigation, the seriousness of the allegations, and the disciplinary process.

While neither investigation report was provided to the commission, the evidence of D’Antoine confirmed each allegation had been substantiated.

The victim resigned on 27 October 2025, claiming she was unable to continue her employment following this outcome and Schultz’s “sexually motivated and predatory” behaviour.

Despite the notice period ending on 1 January 2026, the victim received an email on 11 November 2025 instructing the immediate cessation of work, which, the respondent claims, was issued due to the applicant’s agitation regarding the appointment of a marine coordinator, and alleged threats to delete social media content on the respondent’s page.

The respondent claimed the victim’s resignation was voluntary, and the direction to stop work on 11 November 2025 was due to concerns of serious misconduct. It said it was entitled to shorten her notice period accordingly, and that it paid her in lieu of notice for that period.

In making the determination of whether the case constitutes a dismissal under section 386 of the Fair Work Act – which proscribes that it must be proven by the applicant “that she had no real or effective choice in the circumstances” – deputy president Dean found that “the applicant was forced to resign because of the respondent’s conduct”.

While it was found that D’Antoine conducted himself reasonably in the circumstances to support the applicant, “the same cannot be said for the board of directors of the respondent”.

Dean noted that, while neither the board nor D’Antoine had the unilateral power to remove Schultz from his position, “the members of the respondent, who do have the power to remove a director, were not advised of the outcome of the investigation and therefore were not asked to decide whether Schulz should have been removed from his position”.

Attempts to limit contact between Schulz and the victim were noted, but the remaining degree of authority the director would have was similarly identified as “highly inappropriate given his proven sexual misconduct”.

Dean said: “I am not satisfied that the steps taken by the board were sufficient … the board should have made every possible attempt to remove Schultz”.

“I accept the applicant’s evidence that her workplace was not safe, and she had no option but to resign as a result.”

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