Viridian Glass: Sex harassment claim against Tasmanian branch

“I cried, the hardest I have ever cried. More than when my own mother passed away”: A female ex-employee of a Tasmanian company claims she was the subject of offensive conduct at work.

A female employee of a Tasmanian glass processing company alleges she was subject to “workplace bullying, sexual harassment (and) gender discrimination,” including when she discovered a “large male appendage” made from spare glue and stuck to a machine.

The worker, who has not been named, levelled the allegations against Viridian Glass Pty Ltd, a processor with branches across Australia, including Devonport and Rokeby.

She made a claim for workers’ compensation against the company on October 25 last year, saying she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of her treatment. Viridian is defending the claim.

Follow @humidityreport

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal deputy president Alison Clues ruled for Viridian in an interim decision published on January 30.

As a result it will no longer be required to pay the former employee a weekly interim compensation. She may now pursue the matter further in a full hearing on the merits.

Ms Clues found that “a reasonably arguable case exists concerning the liability of the employer to pay compensation.”

The woman, who has also made a complaint to Equal Opportunity Tasmania under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998, ceased working on August 15 last year, Ms Clues said in her decision.

Among other allegations, the worker alleged she was “sexually harassed and bullied on (June 20, 2022) when she observed a large male appendage made from scrap window glue on one of the machines”.

“The next day the worker reported the incident and had a panic attack. She requested a meeting to be organised but then left work as she did not feel safe there,” Ms Clues said.

“The employer says that this incident was investigated and separately addressed. A meeting was held with the worker where her concerns were discussed. The worker allegedly said she was satisfied with the outcome and returned to work.”

However, this jars against the information she provided in her complaint to Equal Opportunity Tasmania where she said, following the incident, “I cried, the hardest I have ever cried. More than when my own mother passed away.”

Other allegations included that the worker was subjected to gender inequality “because she was not provided with a uniform and when she was, the items were too big and were a hazard to wear,” and that she was “not given access to resources and opportunities compared to her male co-workers”.

The employer responded that “uniforms were ordered but there were ongoing supply issues as a result of (Covid and that) work was allocated to all employees on the same basis”.

In response to the overall thrust of the worker’s allegations, “The employer submits that whilst on occasions the behaviour of some workers at the workplace was not appropriate, the worker was ‘giving as good as she was receiving’,” Ms Clues said.

One of the matters Ms Clues relied upon foremost was the fact the worker returned to work for two months following the appendage incident, which she identified as being the primary causation of her injury.

The worker also “identified in her claim form multiple potential causes of the injury”.