The call is coming from inside the house for workplace relations firm in harassment proceedings
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
One man at a workplace relations firm was accused of making inappropriate comments about a colleague’s sexual identity and living conditions.
A senior manager at workplace relations firm Peninsula Australia applied to the Fair Work Commission to deal with allegations of inappropriate and sexually adjacent comments about herself between mid-2023 to mid-2024.
One man was accused of questioning her relationship with her roommate, commenting on her tongue piercing, making disclosures about their own sex life – including the alleged hire of a stripper – and suggestions the woman was a lesbian.
He also suggested she met men “in the suburbs”.
Claims were also made against two other men but were dismissed.
The three men jointly objected the application on the basis the alleged sexual harassment occurred more than 24 months before the application that was made, with s 527G of the Fair Work Act stating: “The FWC may dismiss an application that is made under section 527F more than 24 months after the contravention, or the last of the contraventions, of Division 2 is alleged to have occurred.”
Further, the judgment referenced the Respect@Work report that explained “there is no specific time frame in which a complaint must be lodged with the Commission”. However, the president of the commission has the discretion to terminate a complaint lodged more than six months after the alleged unlawful discrimination took place.
It was further noted that the commission recommended this time frame be extended to 24 months, as the “current six-month time frame is inadequate and fails to recognise the complex reasons for an applicant’s delay in making a sexual harassment complaint”.
In consideration of whether the application for determination of a sexual harassment dispute should be dismissed, commissioner Sarah McKinnon outlined the difficulty in assessing the allegations and the time frame in which they were presented to the commission.
McKinnon said the lack of “clear and direct evidence” – with only one electronic message being concrete proof – and lack of date specificity “speaks to the challenges of dealing with a legal case about events said to have arisen years earlier”, including that of fear for speaking up.
While acknowledging these challenges, the commissioner said the fact that allegations “appear to rely mostly on her memory of what was said years before … [the applicant] cannot say when the events took place with any certainty”.
Further, no complaint or grievance was allegedly made under Peninsula’s policies or procedures for dealing with harassment complaints during the applicant’s employment.
In addition, McKinnon noted that the respondents strongly denied the allegations, and due to the aforementioned evidentiary issues, “at least some aspects of the allegations cannot succeed”.
It was again noted that the time frame would be an issue for judgment, despite the applicant allegedly experiencing mental health issues related to her mother’s illness.
In addition, McKinnon noted that an earlier application for general protections in May 2025 suggests a degree of capacity and knowledge of the ability to apply for a sexual harassment dispute. While the applicant asserted the difference between the claims, McKinnon did not find the argument compelling.
Overall, McKinnon noted an intention to balance “the need to protect against sexual harassment and to provide accessible and effective procedures to resolve grievances and disputes against the importance of encouraging timely complaints”.
In this way, it was determined that the cases against two of the three men be dismissed as the allegations relating to them “occurred more than 24 months before the application was made and the merits of the case are disproportionate to the time and resources it will take if the matter proceeds”.
The application was not dismissed for the first male, as McKinnon was not certain the last of the contraventions occurred outside of this window, with the matter to be determined at a later date.
RELATED TERMS
An employee is a person who has signed a contract with a company to provide services in exchange for pay or benefits. Employees vary from other employees like contractors in that their employer has the legal authority to set their working conditions, hours, and working practises.
Harassment is defined as persistent behaviour or acts that intimidate, threaten, or uncomfortably affect other employees at work. Because of anti-discrimination laws and the Fair Work Act of 2009, harassment in Australia is prohibited on the basis of protected characteristics.
Sexual harassment is characterised as persistent, frequent, and unwanted sexual approaches or behaviour of a sexual nature at work. Sexually harassing another person in a setting that involves education, employment, or the provision of goods or services is prohibited under the law.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.
