Sexism at work—still not acceptable

Employees, particularly male employees, still continue to speak about female employees in the workplace in terms that are unacceptable, sexist and demeaning. Comments about a person’s appearance have no place in work environments in 2018. The following case demonstrates that all employees should be treated with courtesy and respect.

The Fair Work Commission has upheld Toyota’s termination of a supervisor for improperly exercising his power, finding his “benevolent sexism” and inappropriate behaviour towards a group of young, female fixed-term contractors created a “weird and dirty” environment.

Toyota dismissed the paint shop group leader in June 2016, after more than 20 years’ employment, after engaging a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to investigate an anonymous complaint accusing him of inappropriate behaviour, sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.

The QC accused the 50-year-old group team leader of granting more overtime to a favoured group of young female employees, “importuning female employees working on the line” and giving them the “silent treatment” when they refused his advances. The QC substantiated multiple allegations, including that he improperly exercised his power and authority by favouring certain team members, made inappropriate and excessive sexual remarks and engaged in inappropriate physical conduct with them in front of other team members.

In its letter terminating his employment, Toyota claimed the group leader fostered an “exclusionary culture” within the paint shop and engaged in conduct that breached its relationships policy and workplace agreement—including the shared values expressed as the “Toyota way”.

At one time the group leader posted a photograph on Facebook with the caption “da big boss”, showing the group leader at work with his overalls open to his waist, exposing his upper body, with two team members flanking him.

The group leader denied many of the allegations but admitted to sharing his chair with young team members and massaging them, and said he told them they were beautiful in a bid to manage their behaviour and perception of him and “make them feel happy or to feel motivated”. The employees laughed when he made the comments and did not tell him to stop; he maintained he was not offending anyone.

The group leader also objected to the use of the QC’s investigation report on the grounds it was hearsay. The rules of evidence do not apply in the Commission.

The Commissioner found in her ruling that five of the 17 allegations set out in the report could be substantiated, and provided a valid reason for dismissal.

Among the substantiated allegations, the commissioner found that by allowing certain employees to wear their PPE clothing “in a fashion that was inappropriate in the workplace causing offence to others”, with underwear clearly visible (with their cleavage visible), the group leader failed to exercise his management authority.

He massaged and “inappropriately shared his chair”, with some employees sitting partially on his lap and, in a bid to be seen as a “nice friendly guy”, the commissioner said he failed to monitor and enforce a requirement that they not use mobile phones while working on the line.

The commissioner took particular aim at the group leader’s excessive sexual and personal remarks, finding the evidence supported an employee’s observation that he created a “weird and dirty atmosphere at work”. He said some had nice eyes and pretty eyes, that they smelt nice and that he could buy them the perfume as a present, that they were gorgeous or looking beautiful.

She found the group leader “fostered an environment that permitted discussions of an overly personal and sexualised nature to take place and consider that he engaged in such discussions readily with his subordinates without regard to his position as group leader”.

“By allowing behaviours of such a nature to take place it is evident that the working environment, although not hostile, was uncomfortable for some and at the very least was an unhealthy work environment.

The inappropriate comments [the group leader] would make about the appearance of the female employees were frequent and had the effect of creating a workplace culture that did not fit with the Toyota Way.”

The commissioner dismissed the group leader’s argument that his comments were not in breach of behavioural standards because team members were not offended. Just because the young team members did not object did not mean they were not offended:

“I do not consider the young [temporary fixed term employees] were in a position to express any objection given the disproportionality between the role and authority of [the group leader] and their own.

“Further, the mere absence of an objection does not provide a justifiable excuse for [bad] behaviour.”

While it was acceptable to “compliment or critique someone in the workplace on their work performance”, the commissioner said compliments about physical appearance “need to be considered carefully in the context as a whole”.

Weighing up his conduct “in the context of his role as group leader and the authority that comes with that role and his stated reasons for making those comments”, she said his comments to the young female employees “were in fact a rather blatant form of benevolent sexism, which has no place in the workplace”.

By failing to conduct himself “in a manner that would be mutually respectful”, the commissioner said he “breached his supervisory obligations to promote team harmony, Toyota’s Workplace Relationships Policy and the Workplace Agreement including the Equal Opportunity Standards of Behaviour and the ‘Toyota Way’”.

The Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal.