A Fair Work decision into Metro Trains Melbourne’s handling of sexual harassment and victimisation allegations has determined that the organisation was in breach of its own enterprise agreement clause when responding to a worker’s complaints of sexual harassment and victimisation.
Fair Work Commissioner Julia Fox said, “There appears to be a distinct lack of understanding, deliberate or otherwise, by Metro of its legal obligations in relation to sexual harassment”.
The Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU), on behalf of a member, initiated the case against Metro in October 2025, eleven months after the member first lodged a formal complaint to Metro about six incidents of sexual harassment and victimisation they had experienced from a co-worker.
Following the November 2024 complaint, Metro’s initial enquiries into the matter revealed three witnesses who substantiated the complaint and a month after the complaint was made management advised the victim that the accused co-worker would be stood down whilst an investigation was undertaken. The RTBU requested that Metro conduct a risk assessment, which Metro declined to do until the allegations were substantiated by an investigation. By mid-January 2025 it became clear that Metro had not stood down the co-worker. The victim sought confirmation from Metro that they would be placed on separate rosters whilst the investigation was ongoing and expressed concern about the potential for further incidents and victimisation if they were kept on the same roster.
In late January the victim’s fears were confirmed, and they informed Metro of another alleged incident. Over the next two months Metro:
· asked the victim is they were comfortable to be identified to the accused co-worker.
· advised the victim that maintaining anonymity could hinder an investigation.
· advised that they could relocate the victim to avoid crossover with the co-worker.
During those two months Metro management staff exchanged emails expressing that it “seems harsh to stand down” the co-worker, and that “having given serious consideration to the victim’s concerns, and whilst balancing Metro’s obligations of applying the principles of fairness and natural justice, management had determined that it would be unreasonable to require the accused co-worker to be impacted by a change of roster”.
By April the co-worker was aware of who had made allegations against them. Four weeks later the victim advised Metro of another incident with the co-worker and shortly afterwards agreed to be formally identified for the investigation.
In May 2025, six months after the initial complaint, Metro advised the victim that a formal investigation would take place and in June appointed an external investigator. Metro advised the victim and the RTBU that the accused co-worker would remain in the workplace whilst the investigation was underway. The victim again raised concerns about victimisation.
Over the next three months the investigator began the process of speaking with the victim, the employer, and witnesses. Despite another incident occurring in mid-August the allegations were not formally put to the accused co-worker until October 2025.
In October 2025 the RTBU initiated a formal dispute with the Fair Work Commission alleging that Metro Trains had breached their Metro Agreement clause 2.3 Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. The RTBU submitted that the clause was unambiguous and required Metro to take all incidents and complaints seriously, act promptly to investigate complaints and ensure that complainants are not victimised for making a complaint. It also submitted that in addition to Agreement conditions, Metro had legislative obligations around sexual harassment under the OHS Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act. The RTBU also submitted that Metro had not taken appropriate steps to ensure that the victim was not victimised for making a complaint.
In November the victim reported another incident with the accused co-worker.
In the Fair Work Commission hearing in December 2025 Metro submitted that it had met its legal obligations because it had done what was reasonably practical in relation to the allegations and that allegations must be substantiated before they are obliged to treat them seriously or promptly as required by their agreement clause. Metro also claimed that delays to beginning the investigation were caused by the victim wanting to remain anonymous and the availability of the external investigator.
Metro further submitted that it had taken reasonably practicable steps to separate the victim and the accused co-worker, and that failure to suspend the co-worker during the investigation were due to concerns for the co-worker’s mental health and their obligation to protect the co-worker from victimisation.
Commissioner Fox found that Metro failed to take the sexual harassment and victimisation complaints seriously and considers Metro’s refusal to produce a risk assessment a “breathtaking response to managing risk, especially when it is plainly evident that the measures put in place were not sufficient” and demonstrates that Metro did not take the complaint seriously.
She further found that Metro prioritised the wellbeing of the accused co-worker rather than the victim, going months without checking on their welfare despite the victim advising Metro in March 2025 that the lack of updates was impacting their mental health. Commissioner Fox said, “I consider the contrast in Metro’s actions stark – a proactive and protectionist approach to the accused co-worker’s wellbeing, and a reactive and disinterested approach to the victim’s wellbeing”.
The Commissioner found that Metro’s actions in this case were not consistent with clause 2.3 of their agreement and recommended that Metro review its policies, processes, training, and accountability systems to ensure compliance with its legal obligations regarding sexual harassment.
At the time of the hearing neither the external investigation into the sexual harassment complaints, nor the Metro internal investigation into the victimisation complaints had been finalised.
This Fair Work Commission decision emphasises that employers must:
- investigate complaints quickly;
- actively manage risks while investigations are underway;
- prevent victimisation of complainants;
- conduct risk assessments; and
- maintain impartial decision-making processes.
Employers can learn about their duties and responsibilities around preventing sexual harassment and managing complaints at Sexual harassment guide for employers | WorkSafe Victoria and Managing reports of sexual harassment | WorkSafe Victoria.
VTHC’s Women’s Team has resources including the Stop Gendered Violence at Work Report which outlines the problem and offers some solutions to ensure that workplaces are safe for women workers. VTHC also offers training for HSRs, employers and others interested in safer workplaces, including:
· Safe Respectful Workplaces - We Are Union VTHC
· Positive Duty Training - We Are Union VTHC
· Women's Rights at Work Training - We Are Union VTHC
· Bystander Action Training - We Are Union VTHC
Read more: Big employer's "breathtaking response to managing risk" - RTBU v Metro Trains Melbourne C2025/10304 Decision 9 June 2026