How to respond as a witness to sexual harassment

This could be an option. This could include talking to a union delegate, a community legal centre or working women’s centre, the Fair Work Commission, state based Work Health and Safety agencies or CommCare. Sophie could contact the Australian Human Rights Commission or a state/territory anti-discrimination agency for information or to make a complaint. There is also 1800 RESPECT for telephone and online counselling, information, and referral.

Resources: [insert resources here]

• Work Health and Safety Agencies - https://business.gov.au/risk-management/health-and-safety/work-health-and-safety
• Fair Work Commission - https://www.fwc.gov.au/issues-we-help/sexual-harassment
• Community Legal Centres Australia - https://clcs.org.au/
• Good practice guidelines for internal complaint processes - https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/employers/good-practice-guidelines-internal-complaint-processes
• Complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act - https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/information-people-making-complaints/complaints-under-sex-discrimination-act
• Australian Human Rights Commission - Making a complaint - https://humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/information-people-making-complaints/complaints-under-sex-discrimination-act
• 1800 RESPECT - https://www.1800respect.org.au/

Conclusion

This scenario raises a range of issues that can arise when sexual harassment occurs in the workplace. In scene 1 John felt uneasy about Derek’s behaviour but, perhaps, wasn’t sure if this was a problem or amounted to sexual harassment. The unease and doubt would have been exacerbated by his friendship with Derek and the fact that he was experienced and well liked by colleagues. What may have influenced John’s decision to take the matter further was the reaction of colleagues who appeared to tacitly support Derek’s behaviour. This raises an important consideration for bystanders – if you feel there could be sexual harassment occurring, but are unsure, at what point do you decide to take the matter further? As a bystander, John would have considered all of this before deciding to speak to a more senior manager.

Two of the core drivers of sexual harassment were evident in scene 1. There was clearly a power imbalance between Derek and Sophie. Derek was a senior manager, Sophie a younger new starter. There was gender inequality in the team of largely male workers.

In scene 2 Graham’s reaction to the meeting with John demonstrated a range cultural and procedural issues. These issues can be complex and difficult to navigate and address. Graham appears more concerned about the impact on Derek than on Sophie. Management reaction to sexual harassment issues should never be guided by organisational hierarchy. Graham trivialises the issue with comments such as “I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl” and “Derek is just being Derek”. He demonstrates sexist behaviour with comments such as “Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker”. There are also indications that Sophie may be experiencing some form of trauma from what is happening – she’s less outgoing and quieter around the team. The impacts of trauma may not always be apparent or easily identifiable in individuals, but it is important to notice any changes in behaviour that may be signs of a person experiencing trauma.

In scene 3 there is again evidence of negative power imbalance as Sophie is reluctant to make a formal complaint against her ‘boss’ through fear of the possible impacts it may have. There appears to be a satisfactory outcome as Sophie agrees with HR to handle the issue informally. However, Graham has evidently had an influence on HR’s decision to move Sophie to a different team and role. This does not address the core issue of harassment and is an example of victim blaming. Furthermore, there appears to be a breach of confidentiality as Graham and the team start behaving negatively toward John, as a direct result of his support for Sophie.

[NB: link in conclusion to relevant resources for more information]

This is not the preferred option. Doing nothing in this situation is unlikely to make the situation any better. It also reinforces the poor culture and processes of the company.

Conclusion

This scenario raises a range of issues that can arise when sexual harassment occurs in the workplace. In scene 1 John felt uneasy about Derek’s behaviour but, perhaps, wasn’t sure if this was a problem or amounted to sexual harassment. The unease and doubt would have been exacerbated by his friendship with Derek and the fact that he was experienced and well liked by colleagues. What may have influenced John’s decision to take the matter further was the reaction of colleagues who appeared to tacitly support Derek’s behaviour. This raises an important consideration for bystanders – if you feel there could be sexual harassment occurring, but are unsure, at what point do you decide to take the matter further? As a bystander, John would have considered all of this before deciding to speak to a more senior manager.

Two of the core drivers of sexual harassment were evident in scene 1. There was clearly a power imbalance between Derek and Sophie. Derek was a senior manager, Sophie a younger new starter. There was gender inequality in the team of largely male workers.

In scene 2 Graham’s reaction to the meeting with John demonstrated a range cultural and procedural issues. These issues can be complex and difficult to navigate and address. Graham appears more concerned about the impact on Derek than on Sophie. Management reaction to sexual harassment issues should never be guided by organisational hierarchy. Graham trivialises the issue with comments such as “I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl” and “Derek is just being Derek”. He demonstrates sexist behaviour with comments such as “Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker”. There are also indications that Sophie may be experiencing some form of trauma from what is happening – she’s less outgoing and quieter around the team. The impacts of trauma may not always be apparent or easily identifiable in individuals, but it is important to notice any changes in behaviour that may be signs of a person experiencing trauma.

In scene 3 there is again evidence of negative power imbalance as Sophie is reluctant to make a formal complaint against her ‘boss’ through fear of the possible impacts it may have. There appears to be a satisfactory outcome as Sophie agrees with HR to handle the issue informally. However, Graham has evidently had an influence on HR’s decision to move Sophie to a different team and role. This does not address the core issue of harassment and is an example of victim blaming. Furthermore, there appears to be a breach of confidentiality as Graham and the team start behaving negatively toward John, as a direct result of his support for Sophie.

[NB: link in conclusion to relevant resources for more information]

This could be an option. A meeting could ‘clear the air’ and come to some form of resolution that is satisfactory to everyone. Sophie would need to be comfortable and supportive of this approach as it may inflame the situation resulting in both Sophie and John experiencing more backlash. It may be possible to bring in a mediator for the meeting – a neutral person with experience who is able to facilitate a managed conversation.

Conclusion

This scenario raises a range of issues that can arise when sexual harassment occurs in the workplace. In scene 1 John felt uneasy about Derek’s behaviour but, perhaps, wasn’t sure if this was a problem or amounted to sexual harassment. The unease and doubt would have been exacerbated by his friendship with Derek and the fact that he was experienced and well liked by colleagues. What may have influenced John’s decision to take the matter further was the reaction of colleagues who appeared to tacitly support Derek’s behaviour. This raises an important consideration for bystanders – if you feel there could be sexual harassment occurring, but are unsure, at what point do you decide to take the matter further? As a bystander, John would have considered all of this before deciding to speak to a more senior manager.

Two of the core drivers of sexual harassment were evident in scene 1. There was clearly a power imbalance between Derek and Sophie. Derek was a senior manager, Sophie a younger new starter. There was gender inequality in the team of largely male workers.

In scene 2 Graham’s reaction to the meeting with John demonstrated a range cultural and procedural issues. These issues can be complex and difficult to navigate and address. Graham appears more concerned about the impact on Derek than on Sophie. Management reaction to sexual harassment issues should never be guided by organisational hierarchy. Graham trivialises the issue with comments such as “I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl” and “Derek is just being Derek”. He demonstrates sexist behaviour with comments such as “Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker”. There are also indications that Sophie may be experiencing some form of trauma from what is happening – she’s less outgoing and quieter around the team. The impacts of trauma may not always be apparent or easily identifiable in individuals, but it is important to notice any changes in behaviour that may be signs of a person experiencing trauma.

In scene 3 there is again evidence of negative power imbalance as Sophie is reluctant to make a formal complaint against her ‘boss’ through fear of the possible impacts it may have. There appears to be a satisfactory outcome as Sophie agrees with HR to handle the issue informally. However, Graham has evidently had an influence on HR’s decision to move Sophie to a different team and role. This does not address the core issue of harassment and is an example of victim blaming. Furthermore, there appears to be a breach of confidentiality as Graham and the team start behaving negatively toward John, as a direct result of his support for Sophie.

[NB: link in conclusion to relevant resources for more information]

This could be an option. HR have dealt poorly with the issue and not addressed the core of the problem – Derek’s behaviour. Rather, they have shifted the emphasis onto Sophie (victim blaming) by moving her to a different team. Under federal legislation it may also be unlawful for the company to move Sophie to a different role just because she’s reported sexual harassment. John has also experienced victimisation – which may also be unlawful - because of his bystander actions and would have a cause for complaint. Clearly, the informal approach did not work, so Sophie could consider a more formal complaint.

Conclusion

This scenario raises a range of issues that can arise when sexual harassment occurs in the workplace. In scene 1 John felt uneasy about Derek’s behaviour but, perhaps, wasn’t sure if this was a problem or amounted to sexual harassment. The unease and doubt would have been exacerbated by his friendship with Derek and the fact that he was experienced and well liked by colleagues. What may have influenced John’s decision to take the matter further was the reaction of colleagues who appeared to tacitly support Derek’s behaviour. This raises an important consideration for bystanders – if you feel there could be sexual harassment occurring, but are unsure, at what point do you decide to take the matter further? As a bystander, John would have considered all of this before deciding to speak to a more senior manager.

Two of the core drivers of sexual harassment were evident in scene 1. There was clearly a power imbalance between Derek and Sophie. Derek was a senior manager, Sophie a younger new starter. There was gender inequality in the team of largely male workers.

In scene 2 Graham’s reaction to the meeting with John demonstrated a range cultural and procedural issues. These issues can be complex and difficult to navigate and address. Graham appears more concerned about the impact on Derek than on Sophie. Management reaction to sexual harassment issues should never be guided by organisational hierarchy. Graham trivialises the issue with comments such as “I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl” and “Derek is just being Derek”. He demonstrates sexist behaviour with comments such as “Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker”. There are also indications that Sophie may be experiencing some form of trauma from what is happening – she’s less outgoing and quieter around the team. The impacts of trauma may not always be apparent or easily identifiable in individuals, but it is important to notice any changes in behaviour that may be signs of a person experiencing trauma.

In scene 3 there is again evidence of negative power imbalance as Sophie is reluctant to make a formal complaint against her ‘boss’ through fear of the possible impacts it may have. There appears to be a satisfactory outcome as Sophie agrees with HR to handle the issue informally. However, Graham has evidently had an influence on HR’s decision to move Sophie to a different team and role. This does not address the core issue of harassment and is an example of victim blaming. Furthermore, there appears to be a breach of confidentiality as Graham and the team start behaving negatively toward John, as a direct result of his support for Sophie.

[NB: link in conclusion to relevant resources for more information]

This would also be a preferred option. John could adopt a person-centred approach by:

• Listening to Sophie
• Referring her to the company’s policies and procedures about sexual harassment
• Assisting her to find information about how to make a complaint
• Help Sophie understand the options available to her
• Offer to accompany her if she wants to meet with HR

Resources: [links to resources here]

Meeting with HR

John decides to talk to Sophie and explain the options open to her and, if Sophie wishes, accompany her in meeting with the HR section to discuss further. Sophie is clearly not comfortable with the way Derek has been behaving but she’s reluctant to say anything to him as he’s the boss and she’s trying to fit in and do a good job. She’s worried about the consequences of going to HR and how it might impact on her job and work with Derek and the team. After discussing the issues with John though, Sophie agrees to meet with HR and then decide if she wants to make a more formal complaint.

John and Sophie meet with HR. She decides not to make a formal complaint but is happy with HR’s suggestion of handling the issue more informally. Not long after the meeting Sophie is informed that she will be working with another team in the future and will not have Derek as a manager. No further actions are taken.

John then notices a change in his working relationship and friendship with Derek and his team colleagues. They ignore him, leave him out of important meetings and provide negative feedback on his work. Neither John nor Sophie are happy with the outcome.

This would be the preferred option with Sophie’s permission. The issue has appeared to escalate and the management’s failure to take any action means an approach to HR is warranted.

Meeting with HR

John decides to talk to Sophie and explain the options open to her and, if Sophie wishes, accompany her in meeting with the HR section to discuss further. Sophie is clearly not comfortable with the way Derek has been behaving but she’s reluctant to say anything to him as he’s the boss and she’s trying to fit in and do a good job. She’s worried about the consequences of going to HR and how it might impact on her job and work with Derek and the team. After discussing the issues with John though, Sophie agrees to meet with HR and then decide if she wants to make a more formal complaint.

John and Sophie meet with HR. She decides not to make a formal complaint but is happy with HR’s suggestion of handling the issue more informally. Not long after the meeting Sophie is informed that she will be working with another team in the future and will not have Derek as a manager. No further actions are taken.

John then notices a change in his working relationship and friendship with Derek and his team colleagues. They ignore him, leave him out of important meetings and provide negative feedback on his work. Neither John nor Sophie are happy with the outcome.

This could be an option. It would take courage to speak to Derek directly, but as a colleague and friend, this could have a positive impact on Derek’s behaviour, particularly if he knows there has been a conversation with Graham. There is also the possibility that Derek would act defensively and be upset with John for raising it with Graham. John would need to be prepared for this. John should keep a record of the conversation as this would be useful for any future formal complaint.

Meeting with HR

John decides to talk to Sophie and explain the options open to her and, if Sophie wishes, accompany her in meeting with the HR section to discuss further. Sophie is clearly not comfortable with the way Derek has been behaving but she’s reluctant to say anything to him as he’s the boss and she’s trying to fit in and do a good job. She’s worried about the consequences of going to HR and how it might impact on her job and work with Derek and the team. After discussing the issues with John though, Sophie agrees to meet with HR and then decide if she wants to make a more formal complaint.

John and Sophie meet with HR. She decides not to make a formal complaint but is happy with HR’s suggestion of handling the issue more informally. Not long after the meeting Sophie is informed that she will be working with another team in the future and will not have Derek as a manager. No further actions are taken.

John then notices a change in his working relationship and friendship with Derek and his team colleagues. They ignore him, leave him out of important meetings and provide negative feedback on his work. Neither John nor Sophie are happy with the outcome.

This is not the preferred option. Clearly, judging by Graham’s response and the company’s inactivity on the issue then it’s unlikely the company will take any action. Graham seemed more concerned about the impact on the company if Derek is ‘upset’ than on Sophie’s wellbeing. Graham’s defensive and dismissive attitude was a good indicator that no further action would be taken and a poor reflection on the overall culture of the company.

Meeting with HR

John decides to talk to Sophie and explain the options open to her and, if Sophie wishes, accompany her in meeting with the HR section to discuss further. Sophie is clearly not comfortable with the way Derek has been behaving but she’s reluctant to say anything to him as he’s the boss and she’s trying to fit in and do a good job. She’s worried about the consequences of going to HR and how it might impact on her job and work with Derek and the team. After discussing the issues with John though, Sophie agrees to meet with HR and then decide if she wants to make a more formal complaint.

John and Sophie meet with HR. She decides not to make a formal complaint but is happy with HR’s suggestion of handling the issue more informally. Not long after the meeting Sophie is informed that she will be working with another team in the future and will not have Derek as a manager. No further actions are taken.

John then notices a change in his working relationship and friendship with Derek and his team colleagues. They ignore him, leave him out of important meetings and provide negative feedback on his work. Neither John nor Sophie are happy with the outcome.

This is not a preferred option. If John has concerns, he should act on them. Responsibility to act on sexual harassment is everyone’s role in a workplace, not just those with authority to act. According to the Everyone’s Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces (2018) nearly half of bystanders who took action in response to sexual harassment reported that the harassment stopped as a result of their intervention, while around one third received positive feedback for making a complaint about the harassment. There were no consequences, either positive or negative, for 28% of bystanders. One in ten of those who take action after witnessing sexual harassment were ostracised, victimised or ignored by colleagues.

The small possibility of a negative reaction to taking action is far less consequential than the potential negative impact of harassment on Sophie.

Resources: [insert possible resources here]

• Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey (2018) - https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/everyones-business-fourth-national-survey-sexual
• What is sexual harassment - https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-harassment-workplace-legal-definition-sexual-harassment
• Sexual Harassment: Inform and empower everyone to act - https://championsofchangecoalition.org/resource/preventing-and-responding-to-sexual-harassment-resources/

What next?

John decides to talk to a more senior manager about his concerns so approaches Graham, the deputy CEO. John has known Graham for a long time and knows that Graham fully understands complaint handling procedures and is a very dedicated company man. Graham listens to what John has to say. However, when John has finished Graham seems very dismissive, indifferent, and supportive of Derek. He says things like ‘Derek is just being Derek’, ‘I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl’, ‘Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker’ and ‘Derek’s a great manager, we don’t want to upset him’. Graham suggests John leaves it with him and not to worry about it, he’ll deal with it. John leaves deflated from the meeting and not knowing what will happen next or what he can do.

After a few weeks nothing has happened from management and Derek’s behaviour has seemed to get worse. Sophie seems less outgoing and quieter than when she started in the team.

This could be an option for John. In the working without fear: results of the Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey (2012) the most common type of response to witnessing sexual harassment was to talk to or listen to the target (87% of respondents). The second most common type of response was to offer the target advice (78%). The effectiveness of John talking directly to Sophie will depend on John’s ability to listen and, possibly, take action with Sophie’s permission. It would also rely on John’s understanding of the processes and options open to Sophie if she wished to take matters further.

What next?

John decides to talk to a more senior manager about his concerns so approaches Graham, the deputy CEO. John has known Graham for a long time and knows that Graham fully understands complaint handling procedures and is a very dedicated company man. Graham listens to what John has to say. However, when John has finished Graham seems very dismissive, indifferent, and supportive of Derek. He says things like ‘Derek is just being Derek’, ‘I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl’, ‘Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker’ and ‘Derek’s a great manager, we don’t want to upset him’. Graham suggests John leaves it with him and not to worry about it, he’ll deal with it. John leaves deflated from the meeting and not knowing what will happen next or what he can do.

After a few weeks nothing has happened from management and Derek’s behaviour has seemed to get worse. Sophie seems less outgoing and quieter than when she started in the team.

This could be an option for John, but with Sophie’s permission. It will depend on the nature of the relationship between John and Derek as a work colleague and friend. Approaching Derek could make matters worse for Sophie and negatively impact on John and Derek’s work relationship and friendship. Only John can gage the possible reaction Derek might have to talking to him directly and avoiding any negative backlash.

If John feels there could be a negative impact on Sophie, because of talking to Derek directly, then this should not be a preferred option. This is taking a person-centred approach to handling this issue – placing the target of harassment at the centre of your response.

What next?

John decides to talk to a more senior manager about his concerns so approaches Graham, the deputy CEO. John has known Graham for a long time and knows that Graham fully understands complaint handling procedures and is a very dedicated company man. Graham listens to what John has to say. However, when John has finished Graham seems very dismissive, indifferent, and supportive of Derek. He says things like ‘Derek is just being Derek’, ‘I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl’, ‘Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker’ and ‘Derek’s a great manager, we don’t want to upset him’. Graham suggests John leaves it with him and not to worry about it, he’ll deal with it. John leaves deflated from the meeting and not knowing what will happen next or what he can do.

After a few weeks nothing has happened from management and Derek’s behaviour has seemed to get worse. Sophie seems less outgoing and quieter than when she started in the team.

This is not the preferred option. It’s unlikely, given Derek’s seniority and popularity in the team, that work colleagues would support John or offer a balanced view. Also, John knows that other colleagues ‘think it’s funny’ and are tacitly supporting Derek’s behaviour. Talking to colleagues could make matters worse for Sophie.

What next?

John decides to talk to a more senior manager about his concerns so approaches Graham, the deputy CEO. John has known Graham for a long time and knows that Graham fully understands complaint handling procedures and is a very dedicated company man. Graham listens to what John has to say. However, when John has finished Graham seems very dismissive, indifferent, and supportive of Derek. He says things like ‘Derek is just being Derek’, ‘I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl’, ‘Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker’ and ‘Derek’s a great manager, we don’t want to upset him’. Graham suggests John leaves it with him and not to worry about it, he’ll deal with it. John leaves deflated from the meeting and not knowing what will happen next or what he can do.

After a few weeks nothing has happened from management and Derek’s behaviour has seemed to get worse. Sophie seems less outgoing and quieter than when she started in the team.

This could be an option for John, but with Sophie’s permission. It will depend on the nature of the relationship between John and Derek as a work colleague and friend. Approaching Derek could make matters worse for Sophie and negatively impact on John and Derek’s work relationship and friendship. Only John can gage the possible reaction Derek might have to talking to him directly and avoiding any negative backlash.

If John feels there could be a negative impact on Sophie, because of talking to Derek directly, then this should not be a preferred option. This is taking a person-centred approach to handling this issue – placing the target of harassment at the centre of your response.

What next?

John decides to talk to a more senior manager about his concerns so approaches Graham, the deputy CEO. John has known Graham for a long time and knows that Graham fully understands complaint handling procedures and is a very dedicated company man. Graham listens to what John has to say. However, when John has finished Graham seems very dismissive, indifferent, and supportive of Derek. He says things like ‘Derek is just being Derek’, ‘I’m sure it’s all innocent and Derek is just trying to help the girl’, ‘Derek’s a friendly guy, and she is a good looker’ and ‘Derek’s a great manager, we don’t want to upset him’. Graham suggests John leaves it with him and not to worry about it, he’ll deal with it. John leaves deflated from the meeting and not knowing what will happen next or what he can do.

After a few weeks nothing has happened from management and Derek’s behaviour has seemed to get worse. Sophie seems less outgoing and quieter than when she started in the team.

Recently at work John has felt increasingly uneasy about the behaviour of one of his colleagues, and friend, Derek. Derek has been at the company as long as John, about 10 years, and is generally regarded as a good operator and liked by other workers. Similar to John, Derek is a manager of a small team – largely male workers. Sophie recently joined the team fresh from completing her university degree and is keen to learn and progress her career in the industry.

At first, Derek was seen to be very helpful and supportive of Sophie, going out of his way to encourage her and offer help. But recently, John has noticed Derek being more touchy, overly complimentary and offering specific help after work hours. Sophie seems nervous to John but goes along with all Derek’s suggestions. Other team colleagues appear to be sniggering at times and finding Derek’s behaviour something to laugh at. John shows disapproval by saying ‘I don’t think it’s something to laugh at guys’, but the team and Derek just brush it off. It’s now reached the point where John feels he should do something. What does he do?