Resources: Blogs

Sexual harassment not tolerated

Blogs
|

Hammering home that sexual harassment not tolerated

Last week it was reported that a Bunnings Warehouse (Bunnings) in Melbourne took the unusual step of banning customers (certain tradesmen) from its store for harassing female employees.

Last week it was reported that a Bunnings Warehouse (Bunnings) in Melbourne took the unusual step of banning customers (certain tradesmen) from its store for harassing female employees.

The employee lodged a complaint to store management that some tradesmen who were customers at the store had acted in a sexist manner toward her. In response, store management acted by banning the tradesmen from shopping at the store.

The action by Bunnings is encouraging in a number of respects:

  • The employee who lodged the complaint actually feared that she would lose her job, but instead, Bunnings treated the complaints seriously and without reprisal.
  • Bunnings has sent a clear message to its employees and the community of customers that it is a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment of its employees.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act) provides that it is unlawful for a person to sexually harass an employee in their workplace. Employers also have the obligation under work health and safety legislation to provide and ensure a safe workplace to all employees.

As a matter of best practice, some of the ways that employers can comply with the SD Act and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace is through adopting a Code of Conduct about standards of behaviour, implementing an anti-discrimination and harassment policy, with clearly defined options for responding to complaints and rolling out regular anti-discrimination training. In terms of dealing with customers, Bunnings has shown the way with a firm approach to conduct that will not be accepted in their premises.

 

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

Similar articles

Employer’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

Employer found liable for workers compensation despite worker’s unreasonable perceptions

Fact or fiction

A recent decision of the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission serves as a reminder of the differing standards of proof when determining liability for claims of bullying and/or harassment under workers compensation laws and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

The importance of making policies accessible and easy to understand

Tell me in layman’s terms

Drafting workplace policies and procedures can be a daunting exercise – it requires a careful balance of including (or omitting) information that is necessary from a legal standpoint, whilst still remaining easy to understand and follow for employees.

Read more...

Commission finds no objective or rational connection between an employee’s age and his flexible working request to work from home

The age of flexibility

An employee will only be eligible to request a flexible working arrangement if they are able to demonstrate that there is a sufficient nexus between one of the prescribed circumstances under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the request itself.

Read more...

Employer’s “tick and flick” training on workplace policies rendered dismissal unfair

Not just the what, but also the why

When relying on a workplace policy as grounds for dismissal, employers must be able to clearly demonstrate that the employee is aware of the policy and has undergone meaningful training on the policy.

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s unsubstantiated allegations rendered dismissal unfair

Not mushroom for error

Where there is a factual dispute about allegations made against an employee, employers must ensure that the allegations are properly tested before proceeding to a disciplinary process. This will ensure that the employee has been provided with procedural fairness and any reasons relied on by the employer as grounds for dismissal are valid.

Read more...

Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.