The AFL Grand Final and domestic violence: What HR need to know

Data from Victoria Police shows an approximate 20 per cent spike in violence against women on Grand Final day. Against this backdrop, employers are being urged to proactively support staff and ensure training can support employee safety.

Further to coverage of the crucial role of employers in supporting workers that are victims of domestic violence at home, HR Leader spoke to employment law experts to examine the specialised response big events such as the upcoming AFL grand final may require, and when intervention is necessary.

According to DV educator and founder of Sydney-based law firm Kalpaxis Legal, Cassandra Kalpaxis, significant sporting events can create environments where existing risks of violence escalate. Referencing UN research that found between 55 per cent to 70 per cent of Australian domestic family violence victims are in the paid workforce, Kalpaxis said the risks do not stop at the front door of the workplace, making it a workplace issue.

She said: “Employers need to understand that a major sporting weekend can have consequences that extend well beyond the event itself. An employee may be dealing with violence or coercive control at home, trying to keep children safe, organising alternative accommodation, or simply trying to get through the working day without their partner knowing what they are doing.”

“For some victim-survivors, the workplace may actually be the safest and most stable environment they have. It may be the one place where their partner cannot monitor their movements, control their finances or dictate who they speak to.”

Similarly, Dentons employment and safety partner Paul O’Halloran explained that family violence has “profound workplace consequences including absenteeism, reduced productivity, and safety risks to colleagues”, noting that the Fair Work Act acknowledged the role workplaces have to play with its inclusion of family and domestic violence leave.

Kapaxis said the most important step employers can take is to prepare before there is a crisis to deal with, identifying proactive behaviour as reminding employees that domestic and family violence leave exists, providing clear pathways for disclosure and support, and ensuring managers understand how to respond to a disclosure.

O’Halloran explained that training remains deeply insufficient and inconsistent across Australian workplaces.

He said: “Many managers lack the confidence to initiate conversations about family violence, fearing they will say the wrong thing or overstep. Without structured training, warning signs go unaddressed. Best-practice employers embed family violence awareness into broader workplace health and safety frameworks, provide bystander training, and give managers clear protocols for referral without requiring them to act as counsellors.”

In consideration of high-conflict separation where workplaces become a flashpoint where a victim can be found, contacted and confronted, O’Halloran explained that employers are now expected to have operational responses, rather than just policy, for these situations.

He added: “Increasingly, employers are seeing requests for security interventions, modified work locations, or changed contact details.”

In this way, Kalpaxis explained not every difficult separation is domestic violence; but conversely, domestic violence can be mischaracterised as a high-conflict relationship, and that identifying the distinction matters because the response to conflict is completely different to that of coercive control or violence.

When it does appear to be an issue of safety, she reinforced the importance of employers being prepared to respond and having information readily, constantly available and communicated clearly.

However, Kalpaxis noted that policy is only as effective as its practice, and while many workplaces theoretically offer support, this may not translate into the things victims may require, such as flexibility without performance or attendance management. In the same way, she said policies are only as useful if the person receiving a disclosure is equipped with the knowledge of what to do next.

Kalpaxis surmised: “You don’t need to know everything. You don’t need to investigate. You don’t need to fix the relationship.”

“You simply need to know how to respond when an employee says, ‘Something is happening at home and I need help.’”

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