Skip to main content

Tuggerah hair salon's male owner and senior male employee sexually harassed and victimised apprentice

A young male hairdressing trainee has been awarded $30,000 after a tribunal accepted he had been sexually harassed and victimised by senior males at a salon, including being told “hairdressers are like racehorses, they need a pat on the bum to go faster”.

Arthur Kordas spent less than three months as a trainee at Aztec Hair and Beauty at Tuggerah but experienced sexual harassment and victimisation that had “a significant impact” on him, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found.

Mr Kordas was awarded $15,000 for sexual harassment by a senior salon employee and the salon manager between November 2014 and February, 2015, and $15,000 for victimisation after he complained about the harassment.

Mr Kordas was sacked after he broke down at work on February 11, 2015. It followed two incidents in which senior employee Dean Eaton grabbed him around the waist from behind, once in front of customers, with both occasions witnessed by salon manager Sayeed Rony.

Mr Kordas later told Mr Rony “This sexual harassment has to stop”, but days later Mr Rony said he had “spoken with the team and I’m going to have to let you go”.

Mr Rony or a representative failed to appear at several tribunal hearing dates after earlier denying the sexual harassment and victimisation allegations.

The tribunal heard that Mr Kordas felt uncomfortable during his first week at the salon when Mr Rony lightly stroked his palm after giving him money to buy items for the salon.

A month after he started work as a trainee Mr Eaton told customers that he and Mr Kordas were “like a gay couple. We argue like a gay couple. We’re close”.

Mr Kordas said this made him feel embarrassed and humiliated, but he said nothing because he wanted to keep his job.

On another occasion Mr Eaton slapped Mr Kordas on the bottom in front of another employee and said: “You should slap me on the bum. I like being slapped on the bum.”

On another occasion Mr Eaton agreed that he got on with Mr Kordas “because you’re my bitch”.

In a discussion after Mr Rony accused Mr Kordas of “not smiling anymore”, the trainee angrily responded that he was being underpaid and harassed by three staff members, including Mr Eaton.

Later that day Mr Rony told Mr Kordas: “I'm sorry about what happened before. Hairdressers are like racehorses. They're all equal, but they need a pat on the bum to go faster.”

The tribunal accepted evidence from a psychologist and doctor that Mr Kordas had “done all the right things” to try to remain employed but was left “humiliated, distressed and out of employment” as a result of the sexual harassment and victimisation.

The company Ruba and Jo Pty Ltd, trading as Aztec Hair and Beauty, was ordered to pay Mr Kordas $30,000 within 21 days of the decision on Thursday. The figure included $10,000 for sexual harassment by Mr Eaton, $5000 for sexual harassment by Mr Rony and $15,000 for victimisation.

AWPTI - workplace investigation Sydney and through-out NSW, QLD and Victoria. Workplace training national wide


Misconduct investigations, bullying investigations, harassment investigations & sexual harassment investigations, complaint investigations, grievance investigations, discrimination investigations
www.awpti.com.au
http://awpti.com.au/investigations/

Originally published at - http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4686413/male-hairdresser-wins-30000-sexual-harassment-case/


Labels:
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unfair dismissal – harsh to dismiss, however reinstatement not appropriate

In the recent decision of  Paul Johnson v BHP Billiton Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd  [2017] FWC 4097, Commissioner Hampton found that, although the employee had engaged in misconduct constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the dismissal was nevertheless harsh due to a number of mitigating factors. However, the Commissioner did not consider reinstatement appropriate because the employer had a rational basis for its loss of trust and confidence in the employee given the importance of the need for compliance with safety policy and the maintenance of appropriate discipline in connection with workplace health and safety matters. The employee was instead awarded compensation. The facts The employee was employed by BHPB from 24 May 2001 until his dismissal on 31 March 2017. At the time of his dismissal, the employee was a process specialist, responsible for a team of technicians looking after a flash furnace and other equipment in areas of a smelting facility at an und...
Post a Comment
Read more

Workplace Investigation biased process

The presence of bias be it actual or perceived during an investigation can derail the investigation and undermine any findings and recommendations. Complaint of bias are often raised relating to two areas, the investigation process itself or the investigation interviews. This article will examine the process, part two will examine bias during interviews. Workplace investigations are defined as  "an unbiased gathering of evidence"  and to ensure that that a complaint of bias is not raised or substantiated it is important to follow these rules; Approach the investigation with an open mind. Do no make any judgements on the parties Do not make any judgements on the truthfulness of any of the parties versions of events until all the evidence has been gathered. Gather all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the complaint Do not form a theory and then seek evidence to support your theory only Do not make early determinations If you feel that you ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal

Violence Valid Ground for Dismissal The Fair Work Commission (in the case of  Sekirski v Scope (Vic) Ltd [2017] FWC 1200 ) has found that an employee who assaulted a co-worker by striking her in the face was validly dismissed.  Stif Sekirski commenced employment as a Disability Support Worker with Scope (Vic) Ltd in November 2014.  Mr Sekirski’s employment was terminated on 2 September 2016 on grounds of serious misconduct. It was alleged that Mr Sekirski punched a co-worker in the face, then called her a bit** and threw a chair in her direction.  The FWC was satisfied that this conduct had occurred, and held that this conduct provided Scope with a valid reason to terminate Mr Sekirski’s employment. It is important that when confronted with matters involving violence in the workplace employers ensure that they conduct a timely and thorough investigation.   We recommend that even if summary dismissal is a likely outcome you should s...
1 comment
Read more