Judge v Cripps & Cripps Pty Limited

CITATION:

Judge v Cripps & Cripps Pty Limited [1999] NSWADT 11

DIVISION:

Equal Opportunity

APPLICANT:

Robyn Judge

RESPONDENT:

Cripps & Cripps Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER:

47 of 1998

HEARING DATES:

02/25/1999; 02/26/1999; 03/04/1999

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:

02/26/1999

DATE OF DECISION:

4 March 1999

BEFORE:

Graham Ireland - Judicial Member
S Clayton - Member
A Silva - Member

PRIMARY LEGISLATION:

Anti Discrimination Act 1977

APPLICATION:

-

MATTER FOR DECISION:

Primary matter

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:
P Sekhon, NSW Clerical & Administrative Branch, Australian Services Union

Respondent:
J Needham instructed by Sanders Simpson & Freed Solicitors

ORDERS:

(1) That the claim of sex discrimination against the respondent has not been substantiated and is dismissed.

(2) That the claim of victimisation against the respondent has not been substantiated and is dismissed.

(3) That there be no order as to costs.

CHAIRMAN: General Background
1 I can state that the Tribunal has reached a decision. At this stage the terms of that decision have not been reduced to writing, so I will need to read the decision from my notes, and the transcript will record those details. The parties will have access to that transcript when it is available.

2 This is an inquiry that results from a reference to the Tribunal by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board under section 94(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 N S W, "the Act". That reference was made to the Tribunal on 22 April 1998 on the ground of sex in employment and victimisation.

3 The complainant is Ms Judge, who was employed by the respondent, Cripps & Cripps Pty Limited, as a receptionist from 1 July 1995 to 22 April 1996 at its Cronulla office. Mr Joel Wright commenced employment with the respondent on 15 January 1996 as a full-time grade 1 property manager.

Allegations of Discrimination


4 The Tribunal has considered the allegations of discrimination under two temporal periods. The first is the allegations of direct discrimination under section 24(1)(a) of the Act, which occurred, according to Ms Judge, during the first week of Mr Wright's employment, from 15 January 1996 to 19 January 1996. Ms Judge describes in that period the instances of discriminatory acts against her: firstly, on the first day she stated that Mr Wright was "leering" at her, although the evidence showed that there was only one occasion that Ms Judge could describe; secondly, that Mr Wright would touch her on her hand when he lent across the desk to pick up a pen; thirdly, that there were occasions when Mr Wright leant against Ms Judge when he pulled up the chair that was adjacent to Ms Judge's chair, a chair that was normally occupied by a fellow employee, Ms Normand, and on those occasions Mr Wright would sit next to Ms Judge at her chair and Mr Wright's leg would touch her leg and his arm would touch her arm. Fourthly, Ms Judge further described that Mr Wright, when having access to the computer which stood in front of Ms Judge on…