WorkSafe reported last week on a sole director electrician’s adverse publicity order that was issued as part of his penalty for failing to provide a safe workplace, after sexually harassing an electrical apprentice over a period of seven months in 2023. Along with a $15,000 fine, the electrician was required to publicise the circumstances of the offence, the charges and the penalty in two industry periodicals.
The workplace bullying, gendered violence and sexual harassment to which the apprentice electrician was subjected was persistent, explicit and threatening. Despite the apprentice raising their concerns with the electrician during a meeting with a support person, the behaviour continued. The apprentice felt that they had no choice but to resign.
WorkSafe’s investigations revealed no policies or procedures at the electrician’s workplace for reporting, investigating and stopping inappropriate behaviours.
At the time of the court hearing WorkSafe Executive Director of Health and Safety Sam Jenkin said the offending was a grotesque breach of trust and of the standards expected of those who employ apprentices.
"All workers, especially young workers who are just finding their way in the workforce, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect by their employer and colleagues," Mr Jenkin said. "This is simply unacceptable behaviour from anyone but appalling from a company director who was in a clear position of power, and I applaud the courage of this apprentice in speaking out."
Increased use by the courts of adverse publicity orders is one of the recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Council report on OHS sentencing which was released in February this year – the State government is yet to respond to the report’s recommendations. Adverse publicity orders require companies/individuals to publicise their offending, the consequences, the penalty imposed and any other relevant matter.
Adverse publicity orders are court orders that mandate a person or entity to publicize specific information regarding their conduct, particularly when they have been found guilty of a violation or offense. The primary purposes of these orders include:
- Punishment: They serve as a punitive measure against the offender.
- Public Awareness: They aim to inform the public about the wrongdoing, thereby protecting the public interest and dispelling any false impressions created by the offender's actions.
But in this case one has to wonder what the point of the order is, given that both WorkSafe’s reporting of the case and the adverse publicity order itself are completely anonymous. It is understandable that in such cases the target of the electrician’s sexual harassment may not want the attention arising from public awareness of the case - but in such a situation should an adverse publicity order even be considered as on option available for sentencing? Is the purpose of punishment and public awareness served if the company cannot be identified?
Although the director seems to have vaguely acknowledged their organisation’s wrongdoing, his wording distances himself from his personal wrongdoing, casting himself in the role of an observer rather than the perpetrator. Does this adequately convey contrition? This specific case poses many questions about adverse publicity orders that are important to answer.
Adverse publicity orders are a powerful sentencing tool and OHS Reps would be happy to see them utilised in more cases.
Read more: Electrician fined for appalling behaviour towards apprentice | WorkSafe Victoria
