Workplace Behaviour News - January 2025
EEO Specialists
Creating safe & respectful workplaces / Workplace behaviour training & compliance
We are just over a month into 2025, and workplaces across Australia are already buzzing with workplace behaviour cases and incidents. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is trending thanks to recent declarations from Donald Trump as well as opposition leader Peter Dutton. This issue of WorkLife includes an article about Australian employees pushing back against DEI programs, as well as other interesting news snippets, and a blog by Jill Brazil . Please feel free to share this link with your colleagues and networks.
In this Issue
Employees push back against DEI programs
Employee resistance to DEI initiatives is rising in Australia as companies struggle to explain the rationale for them and the re-election of Donald Trump emboldens critics.
A recent review of the ongoing issues occurring at mining giant Rio Tinto revealed that mishandled DEI was fuelling resentment towards women workers. This was displayed by an increase in workplace bullying towards female employees by their male colleagues.
Michael Bradley, Managing partner of Marque Lawyers, says “we can expect to see diversity and inclusion come under serious fire in Australia… much of what has been gained over the past 50 years or so, in terms of social and cultural equality, is at risk of being unwound.”
Diversity Council of Australia research published last year found that 7% of Australian workers opposed or strongly opposed DEI programs at work – up from 3% in 2017. Chief Executive Women CEO Lisa Annese said the increased backlash was often based on misinformation and inaccurate assumptions.
Employer not liable for employee’s alleged assault at work event
An employee of Hall Payne Lawyers alleged she was sexually assaulted and raped during a November 2023 work trip to Tasmania.
While the firm accepted the employee suffered from PTSD and had paid for treatment by a psychologist, it disputed her compensation claim because her employment was “not the major or most significant factor” in the alleged rape.
The firm argued her employment on the night came to an end at 10.30pm, and the alleged rape took place 3.5 hours after this. Further, it said it did not “encourage or induce such activity”.
Under section 81a of the?Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, an employer can cease paying compensation to an employee if a reasonably arguable case exists concerning liability.
The tribunal found the employee’s attendance at the conference “was not only induced or encouraged by the employer but was in fact required by the worker’s contract of employment”.
“However, it is arguable in my view … that the activity causative of the worker’s PTSD, namely the sexual assault, was not an activity induced or encouraged by the employer, and hence, there was an insufficient connection with the worker’s employment to create a liability in the employer to pay compensation,” the tribunal said.
Manager awarded compensation for breastfeeding discrimination
A manager at KFC was awarded $90,000 in compensation by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). It found that the woman faced discrimination when she was directed to express breast milk in a toilet or storeroom.
The woman was first told she should express milk in the toilets, before being provided with a camping toilet tent, which she was told she could use in a storeroom without a door.
ACAT also found that she was spoken to by two senior adult males who asked “invasive” questions about her breastfeeding needs. She was further told she could not leave the restaurant during her breaks to express milk elsewhere. A suggestion was also made to give up her permanent management position and become a casual employee.
Blog - Unconscious Bias and Workplace Discrimination?
While it may be challenging for us to accept that we may be biased, the reality is that unconscious bias affects all of us.??
In this blog, Jill Brazil - Founder of Diversity in Training - explains how these biases are formed without conscious awareness and can influence our decisions and interactions. While this process is natural, it becomes problematic when these associations lead to unfair treatment or decisions that disadvantage certain groups.?
Sometimes these unconscious decisions can inadvertently result in workplace discrimination. Jill shares her thoughts about how theses biases can affect the four key stages of the employee lifecycle and recommends proactive steps to mitigate the risks.
Click here to read the full blog.
领英推荐
Global law firm sought to bury bullying claim
According to an internal email, global law firm Dentons sought to bury bullying findings against a senior partner to protect his reputation and avoid damage to the firm’s expansion plans.
Mr Albeck, a former partner at the firm, is suing Dentons in the Federal Court, alleging he was forced to resign after eight bullying claims against a senior partner and former board member, Mr Tsiakis, were upheld. Over three years, Mr Albeck made numerous complaints of bullying to HR about Mr Tiakis’ offensive and inappropriate conduct to himself and other staff members.
Despite the findings of an investigation into his behaviour, there were allegedly no consequences for Mr Tsiakis within the firm. Instead, it is alleged that the Australian CEO of the firm used past allegations of misconduct or poor performance to force Mr Albeck’s resignation.
The matter remains before the Federal Court, with a hearing listed for May.
Chartered Accountants ANZ sued for sex discrimination
CA ANZ is being sued in the Federal Court for sex discrimination by employee Jacinta Bailey. She alleges that the company threatened to fire her after she complained about a senior executive kissing her without consent after a Christmas work function in 2023.
An external investigation concluded with the senior executive admitting to the harassment and receiving a formal warning. CA ANZ then launched a separate disciplinary investigation into Bailey’s role in organising the post-function drinks and allegedly accused her of breaching workplace policies, subjected her to exclusionary practices, and threatened her with termination.
Bailey has been unfit to attend work since March 2024 and said she has suffered psychiatric harm, lost income and incurred medical expenses. The lawsuit seeks compensation for economic loss and general damages, aggravated damages, and a public apology from CA ANZ.
Psychosocial Hazards. Where to from here?
Workplace psychosocial safety has been in the spotlight recently thanks to significant changes in legislation, regulations, and codes.?Many organisations are still unaware of their legal obligations and compliance requirements.?
Workplace behaviour and compliance expert Franca Sala Tenna is hosting a special webinar to share valuable insights on:??? Major changes introduced in the last two years.???Lessons learned.??Strategies to ensure compliance.?
Franca will also clarify the difference between psychological safety and psychosocial hazards, and how to manage a complaint related to not ‘feeling psychologically safe’.?
This webinar is scheduled for February 19, 1-2 pm and all tickets sales (only $20 per person) will be donated to registered charity The Essentials Collective
Click here for more details.
Firing an employee with a criminal record – Is this discrimination?
At a federal level, it’s considered discrimination if an employer doesn’t hire someone or terminates someone’s employment because of an?irrelevant criminal record.
According to Sean Melbourne, Director of Source Legal and Workplace, the starting point is that a criminal record will be relevant if it makes the person unsuitable based on the inherent requirements of the job.
The legislation that works to protect workers with a criminal record from discrimination enables employees to make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), which can then make non-binding recommendations to the employer.
Melbourne mentions that it may also be pertinent to take unfair dismissal into account when terminating someone’s employment because of their criminal record. Termination on this basis may constitute unfair dismissal if the employee’s criminal record isn’t relevant to their role.
This serves as a reminder for employers to think twice before taking any action regarding an employee’s criminal record, particularly in the case of dismissal.
If you'd like to have a confidential discussion about workplace behaviour training and compliance, please call Franca Sala Tenna on 0405 134 187 or email [email protected]
For regular workplace behaviour insights, please follow us on LinkedIn.