| Summary |
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondent sought suppression orders on names, places and peoples’ positions – Applicant opposed application – Authority declined application, other than referring to co-worker as “A” – UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Sexual harassment – Following several incidents, applicant complained to respondent that harassed by A – Respondent conducted investigation while applicant worked from home – Respondent found A’s behaviour unprofessional, but did not involve sexual harassment – A disciplined and requested to apologise to applicant – Applicant’s return to work arranged – Authority found applicant had grounds to complain about A’s behaviour, but respondent also entitled to reach own conclusion - Investigator concluded could not determine truth between applicant’s and A’s versions of events, because they had different contexts in recalling matters – Authority found not fatal that investigator failed to make findings on inconsistencies between accounts – Found investigator’s reasoning for decision acceptable, as could not decide which version was the truth, so determined both parties had own views and opinions of what happened – Found failure to interview applicant for reply not fatal, as applicant represented and had every opportunity to reply – Found respondent’s decision not to interview some witnesses identified by applicant open to criticism but not unjustified and caused no disadvantage – Found decision to discipline A for behaviour open to fair and reasonable employer given no actual finding on sexual harassment made – Found respondent informed applicant of outcome and not required to provide report – Found applicant involved in deciding strategy for return to work and instructed representative to make demands – Found no requirement respondent to provide applicant with laptop for own use and at home, so open to respondent to retrieve office laptop – Found respondent could be criticised about investigator not making findings on applicant’s issues with A, but in all other respects respondent acted properly to investigate complaint and engaged in facilitated agreement for applicant to return to work – Authority dismissed applicant’s claims that right to work removed and respondent failed to facilitate return to safe work environment – No unjustified disadvantage |