SUELLEN PATERSON AND PETER CLARKE

In the matter of Suellen Paterson and Peter Clarke, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with adjudicating on allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and victimisation. The respondent, Peter Clarke, was accused of sexually harassing the complainant, Suellen Paterson, on 11 June 1996, and of subsequently discriminating against and victimising her in the workplace. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and victimisation were substantiated, and if so, whether appropriate remedies should be ordered.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and found that the complaint of sexual harassment was substantiated, as the respondent had contravened section 59 of the Discrimination Act 1991. However, the claims of discrimination and victimisation were not substantiated. The Commission concluded that the complainant had failed to establish a causal link between her complaint of sexual harassment and any subsequent adverse action taken against her by the respondent. The Commission found that there was no evidence of a causal connection between the complaint and the reduction in the complainant's work shifts, or any other adverse action taken by the respondent.

The Commission ordered that the respondent pay the complainant $1000 as compensation for the loss and damage suffered as a result of the sexual harassment. The Commission also ordered that the parties bear their own costs. The decision serves as a reminder that employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and that employees who experience sexual harassment have recourse to the Fair Work Commission for relief.