{"id":3820,"date":"2014-08-25T13:49:38","date_gmt":"2014-08-25T03:49:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wiseworkplacetraining.com.au\/2021\/09\/11\/protecting-against-unwanted-sexual-advances-at-work\/"},"modified":"2021-09-11T13:49:48","modified_gmt":"2021-09-11T03:49:48","slug":"protecting-against-unwanted-sexual-advances-at-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wiseworkplacetraining.com.au\/2014\/08\/25\/protecting-against-unwanted-sexual-advances-at-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting Against Unwanted Sexual Advances at Work"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
Protecting Against Unwanted Sexual Advances at Work<\/h5>\n

The definition of a workplace might seem relatively simple \u2013 the office, the work site, the place where you carry out your duties of employment. Yet a recent finding of the Full Federal Court has affirmed one judge\u2019s ruling that the workplace can quite often extend beyond the four walls concept. It follows (as the majority of judges in this case recognised) that unlawful behaviour such as sexual harassment can occur within unconventional \u2018workplace\u2019 circumstances and venues.<\/p>\n

Can a nearby pub be a \u2018workplace\u2019?<\/h5>\n

The case in question \u2013 Vergara v Ewin<\/strong> \u2013 involved unwanted sexual advances from a male contractor towards a female supervisor. Some of these occurred in the regular workplace, while other behaviour took place in venues that might ordinarily be considered off-site. One such place was a pub called the Waterside Hotel, in Melbourne\u2019s CBD. The respondent stated that she moved a discussion about the unwanted advances out of the \u2018regular\u2019 office to the nearby pub, in order to feel safe with the applicant. She and the applicant had been alone at the office, and she wanted to continue the work-related discussion near other people. This became one of the harassment sites.<\/p>\n

A question arose as to whether the Waterside Hotel could realistically be considered a workplace under s28B of the Sexual Discrimination Act, as in force in 2009. Firstly, the parties were found to be \u2018workplace participants\u2019 for the purposes of the Act, although the appellant was a contractor.<\/p>\n

From there, the full court found that the pub was indeed a workplace in accordance with s28B(7): \u201cA place at which a workplace participant works or otherwise carries out functions in connection with being a workplace participant.\u201d<\/p>\n

In continuing to discuss the workplace harassment question, the parties were found to be carrying on the necessary work-related function while at the hotel.<\/p>\n

Important lessons to be learned<\/h5>\n

The decision in this case raises important points for all workplace participants, whether they are employees or contractors. Unfortunately the scourge of sexual harassment continues to exist, and it is important to think through the potential situations that you may find yourself in if you are managing unwanted sexual advances from a colleague. Following a few simple guidelines can help you to protect yourself:<\/p>\n