In the wake of a spate of high profile sexual assault and harassment allegations in recent weeks, the federal government has announced it will implement a suite of anti-harassment reforms in response to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner’s landmark Respect@Work national inquiry report, which was released in March 2020.
The Respect@Work inquiry found that Australia’s current legal and regulatory system for addressing workplace sexual harassment is “complex and confusing” for workers and employers. For example, the report highlighted that the complaints mechanisms for reporting sexual harassment are widely considered difficult to navigate. Last week the federal government published its long-awaited response to the Commissioner’s report. In agreeing (in full, in part or in principle) or noting the Commissioner’s 55 recommendations, the government has confirmed it will introduce legislative amendments designed to simplify and strengthen the national legal framework for combating sexual harassment at work (though the definition of harassment itself remains unchanged).
Interesting question from a client the other day – what if we simply gave up asking for references on new hires? Just stopped it altogether and so saved all the HR time and delay and cost implicit in the reference-checking process? Instinctively your response is not to be so daft, everyone always seeks references so it must be right, but then you begin to ask yourself why not, and why that isn’t actually (in the right circumstances) quite a good idea.
In line with the impending movement back to the physical workplace comes some updated Acas guidance around consultation with your workforce about preventing the Coronavirus in the process.
Here are two more questions from our webinar a week or so ago in relation to the process of bringing employees back to the workplace. They echo a number of others in suggesting that employers anticipate a high level of resistance to a return to the office, at least in the short term, and are not always clear as to their rights to force the issue.
On March 29, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) 
It’s not natural for our freedoms and permissions to be limited in the way they have been since last March, so whatever one’s own views, it is hardly surprising that some have found those restrictions hard to swallow and have railed against COVID-19 related rules, state imposed or otherwise. The requirement to wear masks in certain spaces has been the cause of particular resentment for some and so the conflict between those views and the requirements of employers was an inevitable one. The Employment Tribunal’s recent decision in Kubilius v Kent Foods Ltd is entirely unremarkable on the law but notable for its appearing to be the first reported judgment where the employee’s refusal to wear a facemask led to his dismissal.