Treacy v Williams

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TREACY v WILLIAMS [2006] FMCA 1336

HUMAN RIGHTS – Proceeding seeking relief in respect of alleged sexual harassment commenced in the Court following termination of a complaint made to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – sections 28G and 28L SDA – motion filed by the respondent seeking an order summarily dismissing the application – whether application in proceeding before Federal Magistrates Court can allege acts of discrimination not alleged in terminated complaint – s.46PO(3) HREOC Act – relevance of privacy to conciliation conference – s.46PK(2) of HREOC Act.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984, ss.28G, 28L
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, ss.46PO(3), 46PK(2)

Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1531 (30 October 2000)
Bender v Bovis lend Lease Pty Ltd [2003] FMCA 277 (9 July 2003)

Applicant: CINDY LEE TREACY

Respondent: SEAN WILLIAMS

File Number: MLG 106 of 2006

Judgment of: Connolly FM

Hearing date: 4 September 2006

Date of Last Submission: 4 September 2006

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 7 September 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Melinda Richards

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Phillip Dicalfas, Mission Australia

ORDERS

1. The application filed 20 January 2006 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant is ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG106 of 2006

CINDY LEE TREACY

Applicant

And

SEAN WILLIAMS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

1. These proceedings arise from the Applicant’s complaint that she was sexually harassed by the Respondent. The proceedings were instigated by the Applicant alleging that the Respondent’s conduct was sexual harassment in contravention of sections 28G and 28L of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA).

2. The evidence supporting the application is contained in the Statement dated 8 June 2005 and signed by the Applicant on 15 June 2005 which was made for the purposes of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (HREOCA) and the SDA and the affidavit sworn by the Applicant 20 January 2006 and filed on the same date.

3. The Respondent filed a response seeking the dismissal of the application and also filed an affidavit sworn 22 February 2006 and filed 23 February 2006. In addition he filed an affidavit of Cary Pedicini and Mark Marini sworn both sworn on the 22 February 2006 and filed 23 February 2006. The Respondent denies each of the applicant’s allegations.

Background

1. The Applicant on 28 October 2004 started participation in the ‘Office to Go’ project conducted by Mission Australia as part of the work for the dole program. The Respondent Sean Williams was one of the project supervisors. On 26 October 2004 the Applicant signed a Workplace and Activity agreement which document was tendered and marked ‘Exhibit B’ as well as the Centrelink Preparing for Work agreement which document was also tendered and marked ‘Exhibit A’. The overall effect of these documents was that the applicant was required to work for the dole and would abide by the…