Lawyers claim evidence of affair between Super Retail boss and head of HR

Lawyers representing four executives at shopping giant Super Retail Group say an external informant has come forward with new details of an affair between its CEO and HR boss.

Super Retail chief executive Anthony Heraghty and, inset, former HR boss Jane Kelly. Picture: Jane Dempster

Lawyers representing four executives working for shopping giant Super Retail Group claim an external informant has come forward with new details of an affair between its chief executive and human resources boss, claiming its board were aware of the secret relationship as far back as ­December last year.

Specialist workplace law firm Harmers Workplace Lawyers launched a counterattack against Super Retail on Monday, saying they have proof an undisclosed intimate relationship did exist between chief executive Anthony Heraghty and the retailer’s then chief of HR, Jane Kelly.

The owner of retail chains Rebel, Supercheap Auto, Macpac and BCF last week denied the affair took place between Mr Heraghty and Ms Kelly as it stared down claims from Harmers, which earlier said it was representing “several” aggrieved staff.

But Harmers, a specialist workplace law firm that has carved out a niche in sexual harassment cases, claimed on Monday that a third party, not connected to Super Retail, has now come forward with “key evidence” of the undisclosed affair which it has put to the retailer.

This is despite the Super Retail board having investigated the claims of an affair and reporting to the ASX that it found no evidence of the romantic tryst nor any other workplace grievances.

The board backed the CEO on Friday, but now faces a strong denial itself and counterattack from Harmers, on behalf of its clients, and claims of fresh evidence that proves the affair did take place.

Harmers said it is acting for four Super Retail employees and that another person unconnected to the retailer has now come forward with “key evidence” about the previously undisclosed personal relationship between Mr Heraghty and his former direct report, Ms Kelly.

“We are confident that other current and former Super Retail staff will support our clients’ claims,” it said.

“The board of Super Retail has allegedly known of the relationship since December 2023 – despite Super Retail’s strident denials of that very relationship until as recently as this month,” Harmers said in a statement on Monday.

The fuse to the increasingly nasty legal fight was lit on Friday when Super Retail outed itself to the stockmarket by disclosing it was facing a legal threat from Harmers on behalf of a number of Super Retail executives.

The aggrieved workers claimed bullying, excessive workloads, improper use of company travel and the allegation of the ­affair between Mr Heraghty and Ms Kelly.

Ms Kelly is not reported to be one of the employees represented by Harmers and left the company in late 2023.

Last week, Super Retail strenuously denied the allegations, as well as the illicit affair, while revealing the law firm could launch a legal case and claim loss and damages for its clients of $30m to $50m.

It said it was waiting to be served with legal documents and a statement of claim in the courts, both of which are yet to materialise, but strongly defended its CEO before the market and investors to report no evidence of any wrongdoing had been found by the board and its external investigatory advisers.

However, Harmers has now returned fire and on Monday warned that Super Retail was causing further damage to its clients and that it has informed a number of Super Retail board members and the company’s former external auditor about the allegations, which range from the illicit affair to misuse of the company’s travel budget.

The Harmers statement said Super Retail had now admitted to unnamed staff that the affair between the CEO and its former head of HR did in fact take place despite repeated public denials as recent as in the past few weeks.

“For clarity, Super Retail as recently as this month denied the existence of any such relationship of any kind,’’ the law firm claimed.

“When Harmers pointed out that it had clear proof of an intimate relationship, and thus a significant unreported conflict of interest, Super Retail’s position immediately shifted.

“As of last Friday, Super Retail revealed to certain of its staff that a relationship does now exist between Mr Heraghty and Ms Kelly – but Super Retail now alleges only from January 2024. However, even from that date, such a relationship carried significant conflicts of interest.”

Super Retail, which has annual sales of $3.8bn, had denied the affair took place between Mr Heraghty and Ms Kelly as it stared down claims from Harmers which earlier said it was representing “several” aggrieved staff.

Super Retail was advised by its own lawyers it could be hit with $30m to $50m in claims of loss and damages by the aggrieved staff.

Harmers first contacted Super Retail in December with the complaints from senior staff, and although mediation was held that later broke down, with Super ­Retail going to the ASX to reveal the allegations – including an alleged affair between the CEO and head of HR. This saw shares in Super Retail slide significantly to shave more than $280m from its market value on Friday.

“To date, Harmers currently acts for four clients who are whistleblowers against Super Retail within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001. Since Friday’s announcement, we have been approached by a further number of current and ex-employees with similar concerns,” the Harmers statement said.

It also said that Super Retail was well aware this wasn’t a “shakedown” by lawyers and its clients. “We are confident that other current and former Super Retail staff will support our clients’ claims.

The law firm said its two clients, who assume Friday’s ASX announcement was aimed at them, have each made Protected Disclosures within the meaning of the Corporations Act, within recent months, to the non-conflicted members of the Super Retail board and, in one case, to Super Retail’s external auditor at the time, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

“Friday’s ASX announcement, and subsequent media coverage initiated by Super Retail, amounts to victimisation of these whistleblowers, and is causing them additional damage.”

Harmers said when previously it pointed out that it had clear proof of an intimate relationship, and thus a significant unreported conflict of interest, Super Retail’s position “immediately shifted”.

“The deliberate misrepresentations by Super Retail, and an internal campaign of suppression via fear, is threatening the safety of the whistleblowers concerned and a number of Super Retail staff.

“For this reason, two of the whistleblowers have today given notice to the company of the need for Emergency Disclosure under the Corporations Act in the interests of their safety. This is designed to offer a higher level of protection to these whistleblowers now that the matter is public.”

On Monday, a spokesman for Super Retail referred The Australian to the company’s ASX announcement on Friday.

Harmers said in its statement it had also offered to confidentially settle the matter for sums less than one third of the dollar amounts in the Super Retail announcement of Friday – indicating a settlement of around $10m. Mediation talks failed to resolve the issue, however, with Super Retail standing by its CEO and denying the damaging workplace claims.