National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces

R&CA Submission

February 2019

RESTAURANT & CATERING AUSTRALIA

Restaurant & Catering Australia (R&CA) is the national industry association representing the

interestsofover45,000restaurants,cafesandcateringbusinessesacrossAustralia,whotogether

employover630,000peopleinawidevarietyofdiverseworkplaces.R&CAadvocatesonbehalfof

asignificantnumberofsmallbusinesses,whoaredisproportionatelyimpactedbypolicydecisions

andregulationsthathaveadirecteffectonthesector’soperatingenvironment.

R&CA is committed to ensuring the industry is recognised as one of excellence, professionalism,

profitability and sustainability. This includes advocating the broader social and economic

contribution of the sector to industry and government stakeholders, aswell as highlighting the

valueoftherestaurantexperiencetothepublic.

CoverimagescourtesyofTourismAustralia:

Top(leftcorner):AquaDiningRestaurant,MilsonsPoint,Sydney,AnsonSmart.Top(rightcorner):HutchingsCampsPtyLtd,PaperbarkCamp,JervisBay,NSW.Middle(centre):PrettyBeachHouse,BouddiPeninsula,NSW,AnsonSmart.Middle(top):CruiseBar,TheRocks,Sydney,NSW,AnsonSmart.Middle(bottom):TourismAustralia,HunterValley,SDPMedia.Bottom(rightcorner):TourismAustralia,BalmoralBeach,Sydney,NSW,EllenorArgyropou.Bottom(leftcorner):TourismAustralia,ByronBeachCafé,ByronBay,NSW,HughStewart.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION__________________________________________________________________1

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS ________________________________________________________2

CLARITYOFWHATCONSTITUTESSEXUALHARASSMENT ________________________________2

DISTINCTIONBETWEENSEXUALHARASSMENTANDINAPPROPRIATECONDUCT _____________2

REQUIREMENTOFPERSISTENCEDESPITEDIRECTIONTOCEASE __________________________2

ADDRESSUNDERREPRESENTATIONOFMEN__________________________________________3

EXPANDINGTHESCOPEOFFUTURESURVEYSTOACHIEVEABALANCEDANDWELL-ROUNDEDAPPROACH ____________________________________________________________________3

PROVIDECLEAR,RELIABLEGUIDANCEWITHREGARDSTOVICARIOUSLIABILITY______________4

DETAILEDSUBMISSION_______________________________________________________________5

CLARITYOFWHATCONSTITUTESSEXUALHARASSMENT ________________________________5

DISTINCTIONBETWEENSEXUALHARASSMENTANDINAPPROPRIATECONDUCT _____________8

REQUIREMENTOFPERSISTENCEDESPITEDIRECTIONTOCEASE __________________________9

ADDRESSUNDERREPRESENTATIONOFMEN_________________________________________10

EXPANDINGTHESCOPEOFFUTURESURVEYSTOACHIEVEABALANCEDANDWELLROUNDEDAPPROACH ___________________________________________________________________11

PROVIDECLEAR,RELIABLEGUIDANCEWITHREGARDSTOVICARIOUSLIABILITY_____________12

CONCLUSION ___________________________________________________________________14

Page1

INTRODUCTION

R&CA appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Australian Human Rights

Commission’s National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces. R&CA

acknowledges the importance of ongoing assessment in this area to ensure that the workplace

remainsawelcomingandinclusiveenvironmentwhereemployeesfeelsafeandprotectedfromall

formsofbullyingandharassment. Associalvalues inAustraliaprogress it is importanttoensure

thatthecorrectstepsaretakentoimplementchangesinsupportofthatprogress.

SexualHarassment in theworkplace, thoughbasedonseemingly simpleconceptsof respectand

reasonableness,canbecomeaverycomplex issueat the individual level. It is imperativethatwe

remainmindful of thewider implications of any proposed changes and ensure that the need to

eradicate sexual harassment is balanced against the need for a workable framework for all

stakeholders.

R&CAargues that the current regulatory frameworkprovides adequate remedy and support for

victimsofsexualharassment,however,therearecultural,psychologicalandcircumstantialbarriers

toaccessingthoseremedies.R&CAsubmitsthatamore inclusiveapproachtothewaywedefine

andaddresssexualharassmentwillresultintheremovalofnegativeconnotationsassociatedwith

makingacomplaint.

Thedesiredoutcomeoftheseinquiriesandrecommendationsisaworkplacewhereemployeesfeel

secure,protectedandcertainthattheywillnotbesubjectedtoinappropriateconductthatmakes

themuncomfortable,butiftheyare,thattherewillbeaccessibleremediesandappropriatepoints

ofescalationavailabletothem.

Through these submissions, R&CA will advocate for a balanced and measured approach to

workplace sexual harassment which provides victims with accessible remedies without creating

undueburdenonemployersandunawareperpetrators.

Page2

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

R&CA’sspecificpositioncanbesummarisedasfollows:

CLARITY OF WHAT CONSTITUTES SEXUAL HARASSMENT 1. Thecurrentmeaningofsexualharassmentleavesawidescopeofinterpretation,whichis

necessary in order to encompass such a wide variety of circumstances, however, this

ambiguitycanbemitigatedandclarityprovidedthroughsomeminoramendmentstothe

definition.

2. In addition to the lack of clarity, the definition contains elements that are entirely

subjectivetothefeelingsofthepersonharassedandreliesonlyonthe‘reasonableperson’

testtotemperthisunknowablefactor.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT 3. The term ‘Sexual Harassment’ is a broad term that encompasses a wide variety of

behaviours,howevertheconnotationsassociatedwiththetermareusuallygearedtothe

moreseriousendofthespectrumregardlessofthecircumstances.Thisstigmaandlackof

understanding leads to a perception of seriousness which acts as a barrier to making

complaintsandaninhibitorofhealthysocialinteraction.

4. Acleardistinctionneedstobedrawnbetweenconductthat involvesaggressivepressure

or intimidationandconduct thatcausesoffence.Thisclaritywouldprovideanaccessible

remedy to victims that allows them to express their feeling of offence freely without

concernthattheconsequenceswillbetoosevere.

5. This distinctionwould also assist in removing the fear of being labelledwhich acts as a

barriertoengagementfromtheperpetrator.

REQUIREMENT OF PERSISTENCE DESPITE DIRECTION TO CEASE

6. Notwithstanding serious cases of sexual harassment,which are obvious to a reasonable

person,thesubjectivenatureofthedefinitioncreatesabarriertoprovingwrongdoing.

7. Thresholdsofoffencediffergreatlyfrompersontopersonandworkplacesbringtogethera

wide rangeof peoplewith a varietyof differingpersonalities, backgrounds and cultures.

There is no way to define a person’s threshold for offence or intimidation as it can be

Page3

basedonindividualissues,circumstances,tonesandamyriadofotherfactorsthatarenot

easilydefined.

8. Iftheintentionistousethesubjectiveperspectiveofthevictiminfindingwhethersexual

harassment has occurred, then theremust be a counterbalance to address the issue of

intentonthepartoftheperpetrator.Inordertoadmonishaperpetratorandlabelthem

asawrongdoertheremustbesomewaythatthey,asareasonableperson,oughttohave

beenawarethattheirbehaviourwouldcauseoffenceorintimidation.

ADDRESS UNDERREPRESENTATION OF MEN

9. Though gender statistics can be a useful tool in understanding the drivers and creating

strategiestoaddresssexualharassment,theissueitselfisnottheexclusivedomainofany

gender.

10. Engagementfromallgroupswillberequiredtomakeprogressinthisareaandstatisticscan

havetheunintendedeffectofapportioningblame.Blamecanthenoften leadtohostility

anddisengagement.

11. By resisting the urge to blame and encouraging a constructive dialogue based on

understanding, engagement and solutions, all stakeholders will feel comfortable to

contributeandparticipateinimprovingthisarea.

EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF FUTURE SURVEYS TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED AND WELL-ROUNDED APPROACH

12. It iswidelyacceptedthatAustralia requires itsworkplaces tobe free fromdiscrimination

andallstakeholdersareunitedintheirsupportofthisobjective.

13. R&CAsubmitsthatthemajorityofresearchandworkinsupportofthisobjectivehasbeen

heavily victim focussed and has not properly considered the perspectives of other

stakeholders.

14. As the aggrieved party, there should rightly be a primary focus on supporting and

understandingtheperspectiveofthevictim,however, inordertoaddresscoreissuesand

driversof sexualharassment in theworkplace regardmustbegiven to theconcernsand

perspectivesofemployers,othercolleagues,theperpetrators,legalexpertsandthefinders

oflawandfact.

15. Only a fully informed strategywhich neutrally considers data from the perspective of all

stakeholderswillarriveatasolutionthatisworkable,sustainableandfair.

Page4

PROVIDE CLEAR, RELIABLE GUIDANCE WITH REGARDS TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY

16. It is accepted that employers are well placed to influence workplace cultures and

behavioursand it is reasonabletoexpectthattheyprovidetheframeworkforasafeand

welcomingenvironment,butthetestforvicarious liability istooonerous,ambiguousand

broad.

17. ItwouldbeunreasonablefortheGovernmentsofAustraliatobeheldvicariouslyliablefor

anyinfringementofthelawstheyhavemade.Itisequallyunreasonablethatanemployer

shouldhave liability imposedupon them for theactionsof theiremployeeswhere those

actionsareincontraventiontotheiremploymentbasedinstructions.

18. Vicariousliabilityhasbeenexploitedbyvictimsandlawyerswhoareunabletoobtainany

financial damages from the perpetrator and so unfairly target employers by ruthlessly

scrutinising every detail under the very broad and undefinable tests laid out in the

legislation.

19. Thereiscertainlyapointatwhichemployersshouldbeheldliableandit isreasonableto

placesomeburdenonthemtohavethecorrectpoliciesandframeworkinplace,however,

straightforward,plainEnglish,concreteprovisionsmustbeusedsothatanemployermay

operate with impunity, certainty and security in the knowledge that they have fully

dischargedtheirobligations.

Page5

DETAILEDSUBMISSION

CLARITY OF WHAT CONSTITUTES SEXUAL HARASSMENT LegalDefinition

ThemeaningofsexualharassmentisoutlinedbytheSexDiscriminationAct1asfollows:

(1) Apersonsexuallyharassesanotherperson(thepersonharassed)if:

a) Thepersonmakesanunwelcomesexualadvance,oranunwelcome request for sexual favours, to

thepersonharassed;or

b) Engagesinotherunwelcomeconductofasexualnatureinrelationtothepersonharassed;

in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have

anticipatedthepossibilitythatthepersonharassedwouldbeoffended,humiliatedorintimidated.

(1A)Forthepurposeofsubsection(1),thecircumstancestobetakenintoaccountinclude,butarenotlimited

to,thefollowing:

(a) The sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status,

religiousbelief,race,colour,ornationalorethnicorigin,ofthepersonharassed;

(b) Therelationshipbetweenthepersonharassedandthepersonwhomadetheadvanceorrequestor

whoengagedintheconduct;

(c) Anydisabilityofthepersonharassed;

(d) Anyotherrelevantcircumstance.

(2) Inthissection:

“conductofasexualnature”includesmakingastatementofasexualnaturetoaperson,orinthe

presenceofaperson,whetherthestatementismadeorallyorinwriting.

Fromthisdefinitionwecanextrapolatethefollowingelements:

1) That a person makes an advance, request for favours or engages in conduct with

anotherperson;

2) Thatthenatureoftheadvance,requestorconductbesexual;

3) Thattheadvancewasunwelcome;and

1S28a,SexDiscriminationAct1984

Page6

4) That a reasonable person, with regard to all circumstances, would anticipate the

possibility that the advance, requestor conductwould causeoffence, humiliationor

intimidation.

Thefirst issuearisesthroughtheuseof theterm“unwelcome”.Thoughacrucialelement inany

harm-basedoffence,thedecisionofwhethertheadvance,requestorconductwasunwelcomeis

entirely subjective and can be applied retrospectively. The legislation attempts to address this

throughtheinclusionofa“reasonableperson”provision,however,thescopeofreasonablenessin

thisareaisfartoowideandnuancedtobecorrectlyappliedbyajuristinallsituations,letalonea

laypersonactinginacolloquialsituation.

Secondly, the scope of the term “sexual” requires further clarification in so far as it pertains to

whatcanbewidelyconsideredasinappropriate.E.g.Sexinthecontextoffairdiscussion:

Scenario–Colleaguesdiscussthechangingapproachtosexeducationinprimaryschoolsoverthe

lunchbreak.Onepartydisagreeswith theotherandbecomesoffendedby theopposingopinion.

Theyhaveretrospectivelydecidedthatthisconductwasunwelcomeandofasexualnatureandare

now in a position tomake a complaint in accordancewith the act. This complaint, ifmade,will

likelytriggeraformalinvestigationwhereby,regardlessofthecircumstances,theperpetratorwill

suffera lossof reputationand risk to their careerwhile theemployerwill be forced tomeet the

expenseofcarryingoutaninvestigationwhilealsobeingsubjecttotheuncertaintyoftheirliability

andhowbesttomanagethesituation.Inmostsituations’employerswillerronthesideofcaution

andtakeactionagainsttheaccusedtominimisetheirriskofbeingheldvicariouslyliable.

This scenario portrays a common situation in many workplaces whereby individuals seek

empowerment through “victim status” from nothing more than engagement in challenging

discussions.Thisoutlinesthebasisforaneedtoclarifywhatismeantby“sexual”inthecontextof

harassment and also the need to provide appropriate classifications for the different levels of

seriousness.

Finally, it could be said that the inclusion of a reasonable person requirement would act as a

safeguardandaddressanyconcernsofsubjectivityorambiguitybecausethedefinitioncannotbe

madeoutunlessareasonableperson’sperspectiveisapplied.Itisimportanttohighlightthatthis

safeguardisfurtherdilutedbytheinclusionof“anticipatedthepossibility”.Notonlyiseverybody

held to the very broad and generalised standardof the reasonable person, but they are further

Page7

requiredtogoverntheirconductbasedonthe“anticipation”ofa“possibility”thatsomeonemight

beoffended,humiliatedorintimidated.

If the rights created by this definition are to apply to everybody, as written, then there is no

conceivable way that all behaviours in all contexts can be judged fairly and consistently with

regardstothelistedcircumstances.

Theambiguity in thisdefinitionprovidescomplainantswithuncheckeddiscretionandcreatesan

enormouspotentialforabusebyindividualsseekingtoexploitvictimstatusasasourceofpower.

ExpansionofDefinitioninNationalSurvey

ThedefinitionprovidedintheNationalSurveyreadsasfollows:

“Sexualharassmentisanunwelcomesexualadvance,unwelcomerequestforsexualfavoursorotherunwelcomeconductofasexualnaturewhich,inthecircumstances,areasonableperson,awareofthosecircumstances,wouldanticipatethepossibilitythatthepersonwouldfeeloffended,humiliatedorintimidated.”2

Thisdefinitionisinkeepingwiththelegislation,however,itwasstatedinthesurveyreportthat:

“Existingresearchhasfoundthatquestionsbasedonaspecificdefinitionofsexualharassmentmayleadtounderreportingofthisbehaviour.”3

ThereportthengoesontostatethattheCommission’sownresearchoverfourseparatesurveys

since2003haveconsistently found thata“significantnumber”ofpeople say that theyhavenot

beensexuallyharassedbasedonthelegaldefinitionbutgoontoreportexperiencingbehaviours

contained in the list. The language is then changed to “behaviours that are likely to constitute

sexualharassment”.

Further scrutiny of this issue is required as there is a significant risk that this approach could

improperlyskewthedataandresultinmisleadingresults.

Are the findings of this survey based on whether the respondents have experienced sexual

harassment(whichisabroadandmeaninglessclaimwithoutpropercontext)orwhethertheyhave

experienced “behaviours that are likely to constitute sexual harassment”? Moreover, who has

definedthesebehavioursas“likelytoconstitutesexualharassment”?2Everyone’sbusiness:FourthnationalsurveyonsexualharassmentinAustralianworkplaces,AustralianHumanRightsCommission2018,p108.3Ibid,p12

Page8

Itisapparent,primafacie,thattheresultsofthesurveywerenotcompatiblewiththeobjectivesof

theCommissionandsoanarbitraryextensionofthedefinitionwascreatedinamannersovague

thatitwouldencompassalmostallworkingAustralians.

Despitesweepingchanges inthemoralandethical landscapeofAustralia,howis itpossiblethat

sexualharassmentisontherise?

Arethenumberofsuccessfulsexualharassmentclaimsincreasing,oronlythenumberofpeople

whohaveexperiencedbehaviourswhicharelikelytoconstitutesexualharassment?

Itisimportanttobeveryclearinthelanguageusedwhenassessingdatainsuchacomplexarea.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT Containedinthelegaldefinitionofsexualharassmentarethethreelevelsofoffence,humiliation

andintimidation.Offencecanbestbecharacterisedasanannoyanceorresentmentbroughtabout

byaperceivedinsult;Humiliationcanbecharacterisedbymakingsomeonefeelashamedorfoolish

by injuring their dignity and pride; and intimidation can be characterised by frightening or

overawingsomeone,especiallyinordertomakethemdowhatonewants.

Thesethreeseparateexperiencesofavictimarearbitrarilydeterminedbyaclaimantwithoutany

requirement of reasonableness and can be imposed post fact. Moreover, these three distinct

experiences represent three very distinct levels of harmand seriousness, despite their being no

mechanismforproperlyclassifyingthisharm.

Thetermsexualharassmentencompassesawiderangeofbehavioursfromslightlyinappropriate

allthewayuptosexualassault.Therhetoriccommonlyusedismostcommonlyaimedatthelatter

forms of behaviour. The term conjures images of helplessness, predatory behaviour, bullying,

creepinessandothernegativeassociations.Thecommonunderstandingofthecomplaintsprocess

isthatitisintenseandwillrequireafullinvestigationandcourtproceedings.Theseissuesactasa

barriertoreportingandalsodetervictimsfromaddressingtheunwelcomebehaviour.

Less than 1 in 5 people who have experienced behaviour that is likely to constitute sexual

harassmentreportedthatconduct.4

4Ibid,p67

Page9

R&CA submits that the reason that reporting statistics are so low is because the threshold for

sexualharassmenthasbeenmonopolisedby themoreseriousendof thespectrumand there is

not an obvious option for dealing with inappropriate conduct which does not rise to the level

where the average person would consider it to warrant the severe consequences of a formal

complaint.

Bydrawingacleardistinctionbetweenthethreelevelsofseriousness,namelyoffence,humiliation

and intimidation, as well as providing a framework for an escalation matrix that advocates

proportionate,positiveactiontoaddressunwelcomebehaviour,victimswillhaveawiderrangeof

optionsavailabletoproportionatelydealwiththevaryinglevelsofbehaviour.

REQUIREMENT OF PERSISTENCE DESPITE DIRECTION TO CEASE The most common forms of behaviour experienced which are “likely to constitute sexual

harassment”were comments or jokes (59% ofwomen and 26% ofmen), physical contact (54%

womenand23%men)andtouching,huggingorkissing (51%ofwomenand23%ofmen).More

thanhalf(52%)ofthisbehaviourwasexperiencedattherespondent’sworkstationwith40%being

witnessedbyatleastoneotherpersonand69%resultinginnointerventionbythosewitnesses.5

Mindful that these statistics do not pertain to proven or even alleged incidents of sexual

harassment,rathertheypertaintoexperiencesofbehaviourwhichthecommissionhasdeemedas

likely to result in sexual harassment, it is likely that the perpetrator, witnesses and indeed the

victimdidnotconsiderthebehaviourreferredtoasconstitutingsexualharassment,ratherthisis

an inference of the commission based on an arbitrarily expandedmeaning of what is “likely to

constitutesexualharassment”.

Withmorethan52%ofthisbehaviouroccurringataworkstationand40%ofitbeingwitnessed,it

is unlikely that aperpetratorwouldbeaware that their conductwas “likely to constitute sexual

harassment”. It isalso likely,with69%of cases resulting inno intervention fromwitnesses, that

thosewitnessesdidnotbelievethebehaviourwas“likelytoconstitutesexualharassment”.Finally,

withlessthan1in5incidentsbeingreportedbythevictimitisalsolikelythattheydidnotbelieve

thebehaviourwas“likelytoconstitutesexualharassment”.

5Ibid,p9

Page10

Thereisaninherentconfusionsurroundingwhatbehaviourconstitutessexualharassmentandthis

islargelybecauseaperson’sthresholdforoffense,humiliationandintimidationvariesgreatly.Add

tothisthesubjectiveandarbitraryelementof“unwelcome”andwearenowleftwithadefinition

thatisincapableofbeingappliedwithanycertaintybyanyoneinanysituation.

Inordertofairlyapplyculpabilitytoaperpetratortheymustbeawareoftheiroffendingconduct

or reckless/negligent with regard to it. The reasonable person test addresses the reckless and

negligent element, however, in order to address the awareness component there must be a

requirement that theperpetratorbe informedof theperson’s thresholdand that theconduct is

unwelcomed.Thisneednotbefromthevictimdirectly.It isverydifficulttojustifypersistenceof

anykindfollowingacleardirectiontoceasetheoffensiveconduct.Basichumancompassionwill

ensurethatthemajorityofcasesarestoppedatthispointandtheonlycasesthatwillproceedwill

bethoserequiringthirdpartyintervention.

ADDRESS UNDERREPRESENTATION OF MEN

The conversations around a number of humanitarian issues have been transformed into gender

issuesresulting inapportionmentofblameanddisengagementfromgroupswhofeelunwelcome

to engage in discussion or contribute their perspective. In particular, men feel unwelcome to

contributeperspectivesonissuessuchasdomesticviolence,genderpaygapandgenderequality.

The conversation around sexual harassment requires all stakeholders to be engaged and

participating.

Thestatisticaldatashouldbeusedonly inso faras it informshowbest todevelopstrategies for

addressing emerging trends and not to apportion blame. Sexual harassment, like the

aforementionedissues,arehumanitarianissuesandnotgenderissues.

Byaddressingtheunderrepresentationofmen intheseconversations, it ispossibletoarriveata

morebalancedsolutionthatconsidersawiderrangeofperspectivesandisbothfitforpurposeand

sustainable.

Page11

EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF FUTURE SURVEYS TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED AND WELL ROUNDED APPROACH Thereport fails toprovideanaccuratepictureofthecurrentstateofAustralianworkplaceswith

regardstosexualharassment.Dissatisfiedwiththeresponsesafterusingthe legaldefinition, the

commission has instead relied onwhether respondents have experienced any behaviourswhich

havebeendeemedas“likelytoconstitutesexualharassment”.Thelistofbehavioursisbroadand

inmanycasesprovidesnocontextthatinfersactualsexualharassmenthasoccurred.Theintention

of this is to expand the scope of the test groups understanding of sexual harassment so as to

encompassenoughofthegrouptoensurethefindingsarecompatiblewiththeobjectivesofthe

Commission’s Inquiry. An inquiry should not have objectives as its purpose is to find facts and

providereliable,balancedanswers.

Thedatagathered,andthesubsequentreportappearstobealmostsolelyvictimfocussedandhas

made littleeffort toengagewith theperspectiveofanyother stakeholders. The report readsas

thoughtheCommissionhavestartedwiththeirpositionandworkedtheirwaybackwardsfromit.

Since all stakeholders are required to affect change in this area, it is important to consider the

perspectivesofallstakeholders,someofwhommayinclude:

• The employers who [should] act as a first point of escalation and are responsible for

enforcing policies, investigating allegations, engaging in preliminary processes and also

influencingworkplaceculture;

• Employeeswhofeelthattheexistingframeworkcurtailstheirabilitytoengagewiththeir

co-workersandexpressthemselvesfreely;

• The exploited and falsely accused who have suffered at the hands of those seeking to

exploittheprotectionsoftheregulations.Someconsequences includelossofreputation,

lossofemployment,barrierstocareerprogression,familyissuesandmentalhealthissues.

• Thefamiliesofvictimswhoarerequiredtoprovideemotional,financialormoralsupport.

Theissuesandproblemsthatresultfromsexualharassmentarefurtherreachingthanthisreport

hasbeenabletoidentifyandasignificantmoredatawillberequiredbeforeanyassessmentscan

bemadeastowhetherAustraliaisexperiencinganepidemicofsexualharassmentorwhetherwe

simplyneedtoimprovethewaywenavigatethediversitythatisinherentinourculture.

Page12

PROVIDE CLEAR, RELIABLE GUIDANCE WITH REGARDS TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Section106oftheactdealswithvicariousliabilityandstatesthat:

“(1)Subjecttosubsection(2),whereanemployeeoragentofapersondoes,inconnectionwiththeemploymentoftheemployeeorwiththedutiesoftheagentasanagent:

(a)anactthatwould,ifitweredonebytheperson,beunlawfulunderDivision1or2ofPartII(whetherornottheactdonebytheemployeeoragentisunlawfulunderDivision1or2ofPartII);or

(b)anactthatisunlawfulunderDivision3ofPartII;

thisActappliesinrelationtothatpersonasifthatpersonhadalsodonetheact.

(2)Subsection(1)doesnotapplyinrelationtoanactofakindreferredtoinparagraph(1)(a)or(b)donebyanemployeeoragentofapersonifitisestablishedthatthepersontookallreasonablestepstopreventtheemployeeoragentfromdoingactsofthekindreferredtointhatparagraph.

In cases of sexual harassment, this provisionmeans that an employerwill be held liable for the

conductoftheiremployeesasiftheyhadbeentheperpetratorthemselves.

Thisprovisioncreatesapresumptionofvicariousliabilityagainsttheemployerwhichisbothunjust

andimpractical.

Subsection 2 does provide a defencewhichmay allow the employer to rebut this presumption,

however it is sobroadandambiguous that theyarequite literallyat themercyofwhat isoften

referred to as “what the judge had for breakfast that morning”. That is to say that the

interpretationofwhat“reasonablesteps”oughttobetakeninordertodischargetheir liabilityis

left entirely to the discretion of the judiciary, who are only able to give guidance on specific

circumstances,postfact.Theprovisionofconcreteguidanceinthisareaoughttobepre-incident

anddeliveredby themakersof lawso thatemployersareat leastgivenachanceatdischarging

their obligations to avoid liability. This legislation creates a constant, indefinable threat looming

over every employer across Australia and stifles their ability to properly deal with sexual

harassmentintheworkplace.

Placing vicarious liability onemployers is lazypolicymakingwhichunfairly transfers theonusof

lawmakingandstandardsettingtotheemployer.

Theintentionofthisapproachappearstobetoensurethatcomplainantshavearemedyagainst

someonecapableofpayingdamages.

Page13

Ifitistheintentionoflawmakerstomakeemployersresponsiblefortheconductofothersthenat

aminimum,clear,conciseandreliableguidancemustbegiven.

AfairandworkableframeworkforvicariousliabilitythecanbeachievedbyreplacingSection106

withthefollowing:

“(1)(a)Apersonwillnotbeliablefortheactionsoftheiremployeeoragentthatare:

(i)unlawfulunderDivision1or2ofPartII;or

(ii)anactthatisunlawfulunderDivision3ofPartII;

Unlessthepersonhasfailedtoprovideanyformofpolicy,instruction,guidanceortrainingtotheiremployeeoragentinrelationtothematterscontainedinDivision1,2or3ofPartII.

Thisprovisionremovesthepresumptionofliabilityandprovidesclear,conciseguidanceonhowtodischargeliability.Aresponsibilityisalsoimposedonemployerstoproperlyeducatetheirstaffonthematterscontainedinthelegislation.

Page14

CONCLUSION

R&CAstronglysupportstheoverarchingobjectiveofthisInquiryinsustainingasafeandwelcoming

work environment and believes that the café and restaurant sector has a critical role to play in

achievingthisoutcome.Aspartof thisprocess,R&CAarguesthat it isnecessarytohaveapolicy

and regulatoryenvironmentwhichprovides certainty and fairness to all parties.To achieve this,

R&CA believes strong consideration should be given to the inclusion of a direction to cease

requirementandgreaterdistinctionbetweenthedifferentlevelsofconductbasedonseriousness.

R&CA acknowledges the need for vigilance with regards to this issue and submits that further

education and support for small businesses will greatly increase their capacity to deal with

complaintsfairlyandjustly.Inadditiontotheabsoluteneedforgreaterclarityinthelegislationfor

vicarious liability, thecreationofanescalationmatrixbasedonproportionalityofbehaviourmay

provide greater clarity to employees and employers with regard to how incidents of sexual

harassmentorinappropriateconductshouldbeaddressed.

Page15