Sewell v dnata Airport Services Pty Limited [2025] FWC 2823
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently awarded an employee at an airport services company approximately $36,500 in compensation after finding the company’s handling of her sexual harassment complaint was so flawed it left her with no choice but to resign.
This decision highlights the importance of employers:
- Providing clear and consistent communications to parties involved in an investigation, including on timelines and outcomes.
- Conducting a thorough investigation, including interviewing relevant witnesses and documenting a clear methodology for weighing evidence and assessing credibility.
- Ensuring a return-to-work plan protects employee safety and does not unfairly place the “burden of compromise” on the complainant.
The case
The applicant claimed that during a shift in March 2025 a colleague approached her and asked what she was wearing to an upcoming social event.
The applicant alleged her colleague suggested she wear “a hijab with a short mini skirt” saying that “a mini skirt would look good” on her, despite the applicant repeatedly telling her colleague, “no I’m not wearing that”.
The applicant reported the incident the same day, after discussing it with two of her colleagues. However, the company’s poor handling of the investigation led to her resignation, which the FWC found “was forced” by the conduct of the employer.
The investigation
While the FWC noted that the company investigated the applicant’s complaint in a timely manner, offered the applicant support, undertook regular welfare checks, and approved her personal leave, it identified several critical flaws in the company’s complaint handling and investigation processes.
Complaint handling delay: While the applicant received an immediate response from her Duty Manager after lodging the complaint, the response did not outline next steps with timeframes. This forced her to follow-up two days later when she requested personal leave.
Unequal delivery of investigation outcomes: The respondent employee received a formal written report on the outcome of the investigation – that the allegations against him were unsubstantiated – on 21 March 2025. In contrast, the applicant was verbally informed of this outcome on 10 April and only received a written outcome letter on 28 April after she requested it.
Inconsistent communication: The applicant was verbally told that her allegations were unable to be substantiated. However, the written letter stated: “We were unable to make a finding for some of the allegations raised.” This created confusion about whether some or parts of her allegations had in fact been substantiated.
Failure to interview key witnesses: Two colleagues with whom the applicant said she spoke with immediately after the incident, and who encouraged her to report it, were not interviewed.
He said/she said: The investigation report found allegations “unsubstantiated” when presented with conflicting accounts of the same incident, without properly weighing the evidence and assessing credibility.
Future working arrangements: The company did not have a clear plan to ensure the applicant’s future safety and wellbeing. The applicant had requested to be rostered on different shifts to the respondent employee upon his return to work from leave. However, the applicant was advised that to facilitate a change of roster she would need to change airline or position, not the respondent employee.
“To conduct a meeting with the applicant in circumstances where [the company] was not positioned in that meeting to address the applicant’s palpable concern about working with the [respondent] employee, other than the applicant continuing to be rostered to work with the [respondent] employee, was unreasonable. The [company] is a large employer with both human resources and industrial relations capability. Its operational managers are supported by these teams. If it was the case that the [company] considered after its investigation and communication of the outcome to those involved, that the applicant and the [respondent] employee could continue to work alongside each other, that view was misplaced,” FWC Deputy President Beaumont said.
FWC findings
FWC Deputy President Beaumont found the applicant’s “resignation was forced” by the conduct of the company and found the dismissal to be unfair.
“On balance it was unreasonable to place the burden of compromise on the shoulders of the [applicant] on this occasion and the factors of the delay in the provision of the outcome letter and the content of the outcome letter were such as to render the conduct of the [company] sufficiently egregious to render the [applicant’s] resignation as having been forced by the [company’s] conduct.”
More information
Q Workplace Solutions’ national team of legally qualified and licensed investigators are trusted by public and private organisations, including ASX-listed companies and government agencies, to investigate complex and often highly sensitive allegations of employee wrongdoing. We also undertake reviews of organisations, divisions or units, and provide training, coaching and external advisory support to internal investigators.
Our expert team has documented best practice investigation approaches and processes in the industry-recognised expert guide, Workplace Investigations: Principles and Practice (2nd Edition).
