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...

The “practical reality” test confirms that an individual was an employee and not an independent contractor

Game over

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was amended last year to introduce a new test for determining if an individual is an employee or an independent contractor.

Read more...

No “cause-and-effect” relationship between employee’s request for flexible working arrangements and their parental responsibilities

Request denied

An employee will only be eligible to request flexible working arrangements if their request for changed arrangements is “because of” one of the prescribed circumstances set out under section 65(1A) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Employee who refused drug and alcohol test unfairly dismissed

Guilty by association

Employees have a duty to comply with their employer’s lawful and reasonable directions made under certain workplace policies. However, if an employer fails to apply their policies fairly, then the direction may be found not to be reasonable or lawful and any subsequent disciplinary action for non-compliance with that direction may found to be unfair.

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.

Subscribe

* indicates required