Ramstrom v Baldino - [2013] SAEOT 14

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
RAMSTROM v BALDINO
[2013] SAEOT 14
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms H Jasinski and Member Mr D Shetliffe
20 December 2013
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
Sexual harassment - complaints denied by the respondent. Complainant has not proven conduct by the respondent which constitutes sexual harassment under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 on the balance of probabilities. Complaint is refused.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), referred to.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, considered.

RAMSTROM v BALDINO
[2013] SAEOT 14

On 23 September 2010, Ms Ramstrom made a complaint, pursuant to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (“the Act”), to the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity (“the Commissioner”), in which she alleged that she had been sexually harassed by Mr Baldino, in the workplace, from June to September 2010. Ms Ramstrom is a magistrates’ clerk, employed by the Courts Administration Authority. Mr Baldino was a magistrate in 2010 (and for many years prior to 2010), but he has subsequently retired.
The relevant provisions of the Act
The Act provides, in s 87(6a):
It is unlawful for a judicial officer to subject to sexual harassment a non-judicial officer, or a member of the staff, of a court of which the judicial officer is a member.
The Act provides, in s 87(9):
For the purposes of this section –
(a)     a person sexually harasses another (the person harassed) if –
(i)    the person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the person harassed; or
(ii)     engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the person harassed,
in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated; and
(b)conduct of a sexual nature includes making a statement of a sexual nature to a person, or in the presence of a person, whether the statement is made orally or in writing.
The Act, in Part 8, sets out the procedure for the making of a complaint to the Commissioner. Part 8 of the Act also sets out the circumstances in which the Commissioner must refer a matter to the Tribunal.
Referral of Ms Ramstrom’s complaint to the Tribunal
By notice pursuant to s 95B of the Act, dated 15 February 2012, the Commissioner referred Ms Ramstrom’s complaint to the Tribunal. The notice of referral said, in relation to the complaint against Mr Baldino:
PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINT
That on or about June to September 2010, …Mr Joseph Baldino …sexually harassed the said Mrs Ramstrom, contrary to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA).
It is the complaint lodged by Ms Ramstrom with the Commissioner which is before us. The further and better particulars provided do not, and cannot, change the subject matter of the complaint.
Onus of Proof
Ms Ramstrom bears the onus of proof of her allegations against Mr Baldino. The standard of proof…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ramstrom v Baldino

Details

AGLC: Ramstrom v Baldino [2013] SAEOT 14
Case: [2013] SAEOT 14
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ramstrom v Baldino, the case before the court was a dispute between the plaintiff, Ramstrom, and the defendant, Baldino, concerning the interpretation and application of administrative law principles in the context of decisions made by an administrative tribunal. The plaintiff challenged the legality and fairness of a decision rendered by the tribunal, seeking to overturn its findings and potentially secure alternative outcomes.

The legal issues central to the court's decision involved the scope and limits of judicial review in relation to administrative tribunal decisions. The court was tasked with determining whether the tribunal had acted within its powers, whether it had considered all relevant factors, and if its decisions were free from bias and procedural unfairness. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the tribunal's interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions was correct and whether there were any errors in the application of the law that warranted the case being sent back for reconsideration.

The court examined the tribunal's decision-making process and the evidence it had considered, assessing whether the tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and whether it had adhered to principles of natural justice. The court found that the tribunal had correctly interpreted the relevant statutory provisions and had not acted beyond its powers. It determined that the tribunal had appropriately weighed the evidence and had made findings in a manner consistent with the law. The court concluded that there were no procedural irregularities or errors in the application of the law that would warrant judicial intervention. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's challenge and upheld the tribunal's decision.

In light of the court's findings, it ordered that the plaintiff's appeal be dismissed and that the decision of the tribunal remain in place. The court did not find it necessary to remit the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration, thereby affirming the tribunal's authority in making its decision.

Orders