Login
Reflections on the newly passed Respect at Work Bill
One wonders whether the Respect at Work Bill’s scope will be adopted across industries with equanimity, writes Dani Salinger.
Dani Salinger
There’s a lot to be said for the positive obligations stemming from the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill (Respect at Work Bill) that has just recently passed Parliament. Amongst other things, the Respect at Work legislation is being referred to as a welcome embrace of much-needed social, cultural, and workplace change. As a (somewhat) senior female lawyer specialising in workplace relations, I wholeheartedly agree.
However, one is called to wonder whether the Respect at Work Bill’s scope will be adopted across industries with equanimity.
Hopefully, yes. Though my recent experience suggests not.
Say (hypothetically, of course) I am the lead negotiator on two workplace enterprise bargaining agreements spanning complex mining operations for a sophisticated business. Often, the only woman speaking in the room. Three white male middle-aged union officials sit opposite me, together with around 20 other predominantly male, yet younger (and notably, more amiable) employee bargaining representatives.
One official speaks rudely to me during the first negotiation meeting. That’s fine; he’s trying (in my view) to exude some sort of industrial prowess at my expense. I shrug it off, tell him to please speak to me politely and move on with my day. Second meeting. Next official speaks to me about the (apparent) deficiencies in my client’s process while slouching so far in his seat he might fall off and spreading his legs so wide that, surely, it’s a demonstration of yogic aptitude (oddly enough, I don’t get vibes of zen yogic mastery).
Then, whilst ignoring said yogic positioning because I’m trying to rise above, another official refers to one of my client’s claims, that I am, of course, speaking to as negotiator in chief, and instead of mentioning a matter remotely relevant like, say, a law or comparable industrial instrument, suggests that I can “put lipstick on it all you [I] want”.
Say that, incidentally, I was wearing lipstick in this (hypothetical) meeting.
Now, this is where I draw the line.
In my absolute discretion, I don bright red lipstick. It’s authentically me, costs a bomb (cosmetics relative), and in more pleasant social settings, I’ve received numerous compliments on it. I am confident it is not offensive.
I thus find it extraordinary that in 2022, as we sit on the cusp of long-awaited legislative reform pursued tirelessly by devoted advocates, and in a workplace setting where I am representing my client on complex legal matters, a reference to lipstick (that I happen to be sporting) prompts a bid to diminish my client’s claims.
Seriously.
So, let’s call a spade a spade. The legal fraternity is no saint. Far from. But we’re slowly being held to account, and things are changing. If today an opposing solicitor ever suggested in a room full of peers and colleagues that I was attempting to polish my client’s position through lipstick, incidentally worn by me at the time, I am confident that individual would face censure in the room and quite likely a stern talking to after. Potentially a professional reprimand if it was to be taken that far.
Thus, to be confronted by an employee representative using the same tiresome fall-back sexism that professional services have for so long been demonised (deservedly) is disappointing; it’s particularly galling coming from an employee representative after such relentless campaigning and hard-fought barrier-breaking, much done by former employees turned advocates themselves.
Perhaps certain movement representatives (by no means all; I’ve worked with some wonderful, verging on selfless, officials over the years) intent on advocating for employee rights may also consider adapting their practices to reflect contemporary standards and values, much like the legal profession has been behoved to do. And if anyone in said equation fails to do that (lawyers included), we should continue to call it out because, simply, it’s just not OK. Irrespective of which side of politics or client claims you fall on.
I truly hope that the Respect at Work legislation is applied equally amongst services and industries, including those aligned with the government that championed its passage. Maybe then I can wear my lipstick without reproach. Perhaps too, certain yogic friends may learn to restrict overt demonstrations of flexibility in negotiations.
It is, after all, only 2022. Fingers crossed.
Dani Salinger is a senior legal counsel (employment) at Source.
