The report, published by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins in 2020, found that the prevalence of sexual harassment to be “endemic” in Australian workplaces and made 55 recommendations, which the government recently noted and accepted in whole, in part, or in principle.

Led by the state chair of the Governance Institute, Tania Sargent, the panel began by discussing when the employer can be liable in a harassment claim as well as the implications of Respect@Work for Australian businesses.

Mr Kapodistrias said that from a legal perspective, employers need to be aware of international human rights violations, the prevention of gender-based violence and sexual discrimination. In addition, employers’ obligations and responsibilities can be found in three key pieces of legislation: the Fair Work Act, Work Health and Safety Act and Sex Discrimination Act.

“The legal landscape is quite broad and there are several obligations which employers should be aware of,” he said.

“The legislative landscape is quite hard to navigate and employers should generally implement the laws across the policies they implement in their organisations to ensure that employees meet these general behaviours and what is expected of them.”

Mr Dilger said that when the Respect@Work report came out, it found that 80 per cent of perpetrators in harassment cases were male and highlighted two major issues for organisations to focus on: sexually explicit jokes and intrusive questions about employees’ private lives.

Mr Dilger added that organisations would find tremendous value in focussing on these issues with key members of staff – but that sexual harassment was a complex topic and should be treated as such.

“It’s got plenty of complexity and what will be reasonable in one circumstance won’t be in another. This is where you’ve got to be really careful as practitioners, ensuring that we don’t simply read one case and apply a blanket law to all of it,” he said.

“Work out what’s reasonable for your workplace. You need to work out what the standard is for your workplace, set it and enforce it.

Mr Kapodistrias agreed, and emphasised the importance of employers not only having specific standards set, but taking all the reasonable steps to ensure a workplace is safe. This not only includes having policies in place, but also have appropriate reporting, handling and investigation processes in place.

“Employers should have policies in place which ensure that any inappropriate behaviour is called out. [These include] behaviours such as harassment, sexual harassment and bullying,” he said.

“Any matter that is reported through these processes should be taken seriously and investigated properly, ensuring that all parties are provided with the appropriate procedural fairness.”

From a board perspective, Mr Springolo said this needs to happen from the top-down. Although the nature of a board means board members cannot know every aspect of an organisation, they still have statutory duties they need to fulfil to ensure a workplace is safe and free from harassment.

“What has to happen is the board has to know that [these frameworks] are in place, they have to make sure there is enough resources in place to properly ensure that the complaints management process is done right and the staff are being trained appropriately,” he said.

“The board themselves need to be trained in the policies and procedures the organisation has, because in the end, they have to model the behaviour that the rest of the organisation should exhibit.”

Ms Pollard agreed that change needs to happen from the top-down, but maintained that it was the responsibility of the whole organisation to uphold policies to protect against workplace harassment.

“This report gives us an opportunity to put a circuit breaker in, have those conversations with staff and talk about what this looks like in our organisation,” she said.

“It’s about leaders taking charge of that conversation and start working with organisations and their teams holistically to put boundaries and expectations in place.

“You need the staff being part of it as well as leaders being part of it. It’s not a one-way street.”

Mr Kapodistrias continued by stressing the importance of a zero-tolerance policy, and the responsibility of all members of an organisation to call bad behaviour out before an incident occurs.

“What might happen in the event that someone complains? If that sort of behaviour is common in the workplace, what does that mean for someone who is genuinely concerned or feeling like they are being harassed?” he asked.

“That could expose employers to a range of issues from a legal perspective, but ethically, I think its critically important that workplaces promote what is appropriate behaviour at all levels.”

Mr Springolo concluded that consistency of practice will continue to be of the utmost importance. For example, bad behaviour from a chief executive can’t be tolerated, just as the same behaviour from a junior staff member wouldn’t be. He said that this should be “monitored at the board level”.

“The board has to have confidence to ask questions about what is happening in the organisation in terms of any complaints or instances where people have been spoken to about poor behaviour within the organisation,” he said.

“And they need to take it seriously.”