Search Results

The Albanese Government, alongside the National Suicide Prevention Office, has launched the National Suicide Prevention Strategy 2025-2035 an initiative that claims to set a new direction for preventing suicide in Australia. But the real question is: will this actually change anything, or is it just more political rhetoric? For years, we’ve heard promises of action, yet suicide rates remain devastatingly high, especially in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The strategy acknowledges that nine people take their own lives every day in Australia, with more than 150 suicide attempts daily, yet governments continue to approach the crisis with reports, strategies, and media statements instead of tangible, immediate action. One of the supposed cornerstones of this strategy is the Culture Care Connect program, led by NACCHO Aboriginal Health Australia, which focuses on culturally safe suicide prevention planning. It is also designed to align with the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Strategy by Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit). While this recognition is essential, the reality is that Aboriginal suicide rates have continued to rise despite decades of so-called investment in Indigenous-led solutions. If this strategy is just another announcement without real, on-the-ground changes, it won’t mean much to the communities who are losing loved ones at an alarming rate. The Grim Reality - Words Are Not Enough Every day in Australia: Nine lives lost to suicide More than 150 attempts to take their own life Over 3,000 lives lost each year The effects of suicide are catastrophic, and yet successive governments’ both Labor and Liberal, have continued to let down the most vulnerable by failing to fund real, accessible crisis support. This new strategy promises a compassionate, evidence-based suicide prevention system, but without serious structural change, how is this different from all the previous strategies that have failed? Show Us the Action - Not Just More Announcements The Albanese Government is throwing $69 million into the National Suicide Prevention Leadership and Support Program (NSPLSP), but how much of this will actually reach the frontlines where it’s needed most? Bureaucratic funding models have historically failed to deliver resources directly to those who need them, with red tape often preventing real progress. Similarly, the $16.6 million allocated to First Nations suicide prevention programs last year sounds good in a press release, but we have yet to see measurable improvements in outcomes. Where is the accountability for past funding failures? How much of this will go towards actual crisis intervention instead of research reports and administrative costs? A New Approach Or Just a Rebranding of the Old One? Minister Butler says: Over the last two decades, on average, nine lives have been tragically lost to suicide every day. It is clear we need a new approach to how we prevent suicide as a nation. We’ve heard this before. Every time a new government takes office, they repackage the same promises, launch another “new approach, and make grand statements about working together to prevent suicide. Meanwhile, communities continue to suffer while waiting for real change. Yes, states and territories have endorsed this strategy but what does that actually mean? Until we see real, measurable improvements, including better access to mental health services, crisis intervention programs, and culturally competent care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this is just another political announcement. If You Need Help, Don’t Wait for Government Action If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available now. Call 13YARN on 13 92 76 (24/7) to speak with a trained Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Crisis Supporter. Until governments start delivering real action instead of more reports and strategies, it’s up to communities to support each other. Let’s keep the pressure on to ensure this doesn’t become just another empty promise. #CloseTheGap #ActionNotWords #SuicidePrevention #GayaaDhuwi #CultureCareConnect

Introduction Discrimination in employment on the basis of a criminal record is a growing issue in Australia, raising serious questions about fairness, rehabilitation, and workplace integrity. The case of Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd [2018] AusHRC 125  provides a crucial example of how employers must properly assess criminal history checks and comply with anti-discrimination laws. This case was heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), which found that Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd (Redflex) unlawfully discriminated against Ms Smith by withdrawing a conditional job offer due to her past criminal record. The decision highlights the importance of making individualised assessments in recruitment rather than implementing blanket exclusions. At 1800ADVOCATES , we support workers facing workplace discrimination and advocate for fair treatment in employment. This case demonstrates the need for employers to ensure their hiring practices align with human rights protections. Employment Discrimination and Criminal Records: The Case of Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd [2018] AusHRC 125 The Case: Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd Ms Jessica Smith applied for a position as a Mobile Speed Camera Operator (MSCO) with Redflex in September 2016. She successfully completed the interview process and was offered the job on a conditional basis, subject to a criminal history check and medical assessment. Ms Smith disclosed that her National Police Check (NPC) would likely reveal disclosable offences and requested that the check be conducted before her medical assessment. A few weeks later, Redflex withdrew her job offer, citing her criminal record as the reason. Ms Smith sought clarification from Redflex and requested an opportunity to discuss her circumstances. Redflex did not respond, prompting her to lodge a complaint with the AHRC, alleging discrimination on the basis of her criminal record. Ms Smith’s Criminal Record Ms Smith’s criminal history included: 2004  – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm  (Community service order, 80 hours) 2007  – Possession of a prohibited drug (marijuana)  (Fined $150 plus court costs) Redflex’s Justification for Withdrawing the Offer Redflex argued that: The MSCO role required candidates to pass a criminal history check. The contract with Roads and Maritime Services NSW (RMS) required Redflex to ensure all employees were fit and proper persons. Ms Smith’s criminal record indicated she was unsuitable for the role, as it involved dealing with the public in potentially volatile situations. Legal Issues Considered by the AHRC The AHRC examined whether: Redflex’s decision constituted an exclusion from employment on the basis of a criminal record. The exclusion impaired Ms Smith’s equality of opportunity in employment. Redflex could justify the exclusion based on the inherent requirements  of the job. Findings of the AHRC The AHRC found that: Redflex discriminated against Ms Smith  by rescinding her job offer based solely on her criminal record. The exclusion was not justified  under the inherent requirements  of the role. Ms Smith’s past offences did not automatically disqualify her  from employment. Redflex failed to conduct an individualised assessment , relying instead on broad assumptions about Ms Smith’s character. There was no evidence that RMS required Ms Smith’s exclusion , as Redflex had not referred her case to RMS for review. Recommendations by the AHRC The AHRC recommended that Redflex: Pay Ms Smith $2,500 in compensation  for the hurt, humiliation, and distress caused. Revise its recruitment policies  to align with AHRC guidelines on criminal record discrimination. Train HR and recruitment staff  on fair assessment of criminal history in employment. To Redflex’s credit, the company accepted the recommendations, implemented an anti-discrimination policy, and provided training for its staff. What This Case Means for Workers and Employers For Workers: Understanding Your Rights This case highlights important protections for individuals with a criminal record: A past conviction does not automatically disqualify  you from employment. Employers must justify exclusions  based on a criminal record by demonstrating that the conviction directly impacts the job’s inherent requirements . You have the right to request an individualised assessment  and to explain your circumstances before an employer makes a final decision. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission . For Employers: Best Practices in Hiring Employers should: Assess criminal records on a case-by-case basis , ensuring a direct connection between the conviction and the job’s requirements. Avoid blanket policies that automatically exclude candidates  with any criminal history. Ensure recruitment decisions align with anti-discrimination laws . Follow the AHRC’s On the Record: Guidelines for the Prevention of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of Criminal Record . Engage with candidates about their history  rather than making assumptions. Balancing Workplace Integrity with Human Rights While employers must ensure workplace integrity and safety, they must also balance this obligation with fair and lawful hiring practices . The AHRC emphasised that an exclusion based on a criminal record should only occur where there is a tight correlation  between the offence and the job’s requirements. In this case, Ms Smith’s past convictions—one for a minor drug offence and another for an assault committed over a decade prior—did not necessarily impact her ability to perform the MSCO role. The AHRC found that Redflex’s decision was based on assumptions rather than a fair assessment of her individual merits. How 1800ADVOCATES Supports Workers Facing Discrimination As employment and human rights advocates, 1800ADVOCATES  is committed to assisting workers who experience discrimination. While we do not provide legal representation, we can: Help you understand  your rights under Australian law. Assist in preparing complaints  to the Australian Human Rights Commission or Fair Work Commission. If you believe you have been unfairly treated in the workplace due to a criminal record, contact 1800ADVOCATES  for general information and guidance. Final Thoughts: Fair Employment for All The case of Ms Jessica Smith v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd  serves as a crucial reminder that workers should not be unfairly judged on their past, and that employers must ensure their hiring practices comply with human rights principles. Employment discrimination laws exist to provide equal opportunity  for all Australians, including those with prior convictions. At 1800ADVOCATES , we are committed to ensuring that every worker has a fair chance at employment, free from unlawful discrimination. If you need support regarding workplace discrimination, reach out to 1800ADVOCATES  today. Disclaimer The following article provides general information only and is not intended as legal advice. 1800ADVOCATES  is not a law firm, and we do not provide legal representation. We are employment and human rights advocates committed to supporting workers in understanding their rights. If you require legal advice, we recommend consulting a qualified solicitor or legal service provider.

Introduction Discrimination in employment based on a person’s criminal record is a significant issue in Australia, raising complex questions about fairness, rehabilitation, and workplace integrity. The case of BE v Suncorp Group Ltd [2018] AusHRC 121  highlights these challenges and underscores the importance of ensuring fair and lawful recruitment practices. In this case, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) found that Suncorp discriminated against a job applicant by rescinding his conditional job offer due to his criminal history. This decision is a critical reminder for both employers and job seekers about the obligations and rights that exist under Australian law. At 1800ADVOCATES , we work to ensure that individuals facing discrimination in the workplace understand their rights and can take action when they experience unfair treatment. Employment Discrimination and Criminal Records: Lessons from BE v Suncorp Group Ltd [2018] AusHRC 121 The Case: BE v Suncorp Group Ltd In 2015, BE applied for a Work@Home Claims Assist Consultant  position with Suncorp. He successfully progressed through the recruitment process and was offered the role, conditional upon passing a background check. When Suncorp discovered BE’s criminal history—which included prior convictions for child pornography offences in 2008 and a 2015 conviction for failure to comply with reporting obligations—it rescinded the offer. BE lodged a complaint with the AHRC, arguing that he was unfairly excluded from employment due to his criminal record. Suncorp defended its decision, arguing that BE’s record was relevant to the inherent requirements  of the role, particularly in relation to trustworthiness and good character. After reviewing the case, the AHRC determined that Suncorp’s actions amounted to discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986  (Cth). Legal Issues Considered by the AHRC The AHRC examined several key legal issues: Whether BE was excluded from employment due to his criminal record. Whether this exclusion impaired his equality of opportunity in employment. Whether Suncorp’s exclusion of BE was justified based on the inherent requirements  of the role. Findings of the AHRC The AHRC found that: Suncorp discriminated against BE  by rescinding his job offer based on his criminal record. The exclusion was not justified  under the inherent requirements  of the role. BE’s past convictions did not automatically disqualify him  from the position. Suncorp’s recruitment process lacked an individualised assessment , relying instead on broad assumptions about BE’s suitability. BE’s prior work experience  in customer service and dispute resolution demonstrated his ability to work in a role requiring confidentiality and professionalism. As a result, the AHRC recommended that Suncorp: Pay compensation  to BE for the distress caused by the discrimination. Revise its recruitment policies  to prevent discrimination based on criminal records. Conduct training  for HR and recruitment personnel on how to assess criminal history fairly and in compliance with human rights protections. What This Means for Workers and Employers For Workers: Understanding Your Rights This case reinforces that: A criminal record does not automatically disqualify you from employment. Employers must conduct a fair and individualised assessment  rather than applying a blanket exclusion policy. If an employer denies you a job due to your criminal record, they must justify why your record makes you unsuitable for the role. You may have grounds to challenge  an unfair decision by lodging a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. For Employers: Ensuring Fair Recruitment Practices Employers must: Assess criminal records on a case-by-case basis , ensuring a direct connection between the conviction and the inherent requirements of the job. Avoid blanket policies that automatically exclude candidates with any criminal history. Train HR staff on anti-discrimination laws and fair hiring practices . Follow the AHRC’s On the Record: Guidelines for the Prevention of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of Criminal Record  to ensure compliance. Balancing Workplace Integrity with Human Rights Employers often raise concerns about trust and integrity when hiring individuals with a criminal record. However, Australian law requires that any exclusion based on a criminal record must be directly linked to the inherent requirements  of the job. In BE v Suncorp , the AHRC found that there was no clear link  between BE’s past convictions and his ability to perform the role of a Work@Home Consultant. This highlights the importance of avoiding assumptions  and ensuring that hiring decisions are made based on an individual’s qualifications and capabilities rather than their past mistakes. How We Support Workers Facing Discrimination As employment and human rights advocates, 1800ADVOCATES  is committed to assisting workers who experience discrimination in the workplace. While we do not provide legal representation, we offer guidance and support to workers who believe they have been treated unfairly. We can: Help you understand  your rights under Australian law. Assist you in preparing a complaint  to the AHRC or Fair Work Commission. If you believe you have been unfairly treated in the workplace due to a criminal record, contact us at 1800ADVOCATES  for general information and guidance. Final Thoughts: Fair Employment for All The case of BE v Suncorp  serves as a crucial reminder that workers should not be unfairly judged on their past and that employers must ensure that their hiring practices comply with human rights principles. Employment discrimination laws exist to provide equal opportunity  for all Australians, including those with prior convictions. At 1800ADVOCATES , we remain dedicated to ensuring fairness, equity, and justice in employment. If you need support regarding workplace discrimination, reach out to 1800ADVOCATES  today. Disclaimer This article provides general information only and is not intended as legal advice. 1800ADVOCATES  is not a law firm, and we do not provide legal representation. We are employment and human rights advocates committed to supporting workers in understanding their rights. If you require legal advice, we recommend consulting a qualified solicitor or legal service provider.

Misusing Ritalin, particularly through snorting, can have serious consequences for a person’s employment. Many workplaces prioritise safety, productivity, and compliance with drug policies, meaning that substance abuse can jeopardise job security. Below are some key ways in which snorting Ritalin can negatively affect employment. 1. Decline in Job Performance While some individuals misuse Ritalin to enhance focus and productivity, prolonged misuse often leads to the opposite effect. Side effects such as anxiety, agitation, memory impairment, and mood swings can result in: Reduced concentration and decision-making ability Increased errors and poor work quality Inconsistent productivity and missed deadlines Difficulty maintaining professional relationships with colleagues and clients The Impact of Snorting Ritalin on Employment 2. Workplace Safety Risks Many industries, particularly those involving machinery, driving, or hazardous environments, require employees to be alert and clear-headed. The stimulant effects of Ritalin, combined with potential withdrawal symptoms, can cause: Impaired judgment and reaction time Increased risk of workplace accidents and injuries Violation of workplace health and safety (WHS) policies, which could result in termination 3. Breach of Workplace Drug Policies Most employers have strict drug and alcohol policies that prohibit the use of controlled substances without a valid prescription. Snorting Ritalin could result in: Positive drug test results during routine or random workplace testing Breach of an employment contract or company policies Disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal 4. Legal and Professional Consequences For employees in regulated professions—such as healthcare, law enforcement, finance, and education—substance misuse can have serious legal and ethical ramifications. Consequences may include: Loss of professional accreditation or licences Breach of ethical codes of conduct Criminal charges if caught possessing or misusing prescription medication Reputational damage that affects future employment opportunities 5. Increased Absenteeism and Unreliability Substance misuse often leads to higher rates of absenteeism due to health complications, withdrawal symptoms, or mental health struggles. Frequent sick days, late arrivals, or unplanned leave can: Affect team performance and morale Lead to warnings or performance management processes Create job instability, making it difficult to secure future roles 6. Risk of Workplace Discrimination and Stigma Employees struggling with substance misuse may face stigma in the workplace, making it harder to seek help. Some employers may: Assume the employee is unreliable or incapable of performing their duties Withhold career advancement opportunities due to concerns about responsibility or stability Discriminate against the employee, despite workplace protections against disability or health-related conditions Seeking Support and Maintaining Employment If an employee is struggling with Ritalin misuse, early intervention can help prevent job loss and long-term career damage. Steps to consider include: Accessing Employee Assistance Programs (EAP):  Many workplaces offer confidential counselling and support services. Seeking Medical and Rehabilitation Support:  Engaging with a doctor or addiction specialist can help manage substance dependence. Discussing Workplace Adjustments:  In some cases, employees may be able to request reasonable accommodations to address underlying health issues. Conclusion Snorting Ritalin can have severe consequences for employment, affecting job performance, workplace safety, and legal standing. While some may misuse it to cope with work demands, the risks far outweigh any short-term benefits. Employees facing substance-related challenges should seek professional support to protect both their health and career. Disclaimer We offer this information in our capacity as Employment and Human Rights Advocates and do not offer it as legal advice, as legal service, or as legal practitioners. 1800ADVOCATES Pty Ltd. Should you wish to seek legal advice on these matters, we recommend consulting a legal practitioner. Author: Brian AJ Newman, LLB Principal Employment and Human Rights Advocate

The idea that holding a law degree automatically defines someone as a lawyer is a misconception that I’ve worked hard to challenge. Much like possessing a truck licence doesn’t make someone a truck driver, having a law degree doesn’t dictate one’s identity or career path. For me, my law degree was never about becoming “just a lawyer”—it was about building something far more meaningful: a career as a professional advocate in industrial relations and human rights. A Legacy of Love and Determination My journey into studying law was not driven by personal ambition, but by love. It was a decision inspired by my father, Brian Newman Snr, who dreamed of becoming a lawyer but never had the opportunity to pursue that path. When he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I made a promise—to honour his dream by earning a law degree in his name. The degree was not merely a qualification; it became a deeply personal tribute to my father. When I was awarded the degree, it bore only the name “Brian Newman,” a testament to the shared effort between us. My father passed away just twelve days later, and as we said our final goodbyes, I placed a copy of that degree in his coffin. It was my way of ensuring he carried a piece of that dream with him. This degree represents so much more than academic achievement. It embodies love, resilience, and the values my father instilled in me—integrity, dedication, and the courage to carve out my own path. A Career Built on Advocacy From industrial disputes to unfair dismissal cases and human rights advocacy, my career has centred on standing up for those who often lack a voice. Advocacy has taken me into workplaces, tribunals, and commissions, where I’ve worked tirelessly to deliver practical, meaningful solutions for my clients. This work does not require a practising certificate. What it demands is a deep understanding of the systems that govern workplaces and human rights and a passion for justice. My expertise has been developed over decades of navigating these complexities, not from standing in courtrooms but from making a tangible difference in people’s lives. Not a Lawyer, But an Advocate Unlike many law graduates who aspire to become solicitors or barristers, I’ve never desired to join the legal profession in its traditional sense. The title of “lawyer” holds no appeal for me. Instead, I’ve found my calling in advocacy—where I can work directly with clients, approach challenges creatively, and focus on achieving results that matter. Australia has no shortage of lawyers, but what it often lacks are professional advocates who can navigate the intersections of industrial relations and human rights. That’s where I’ve chosen to focus my skills and energy, building a career that aligns with my values and purpose. The Journey Ahead In 2025, I will return to Griffith University to pursue a Master of International Law, further deepening my knowledge and expanding my ability to advocate on a global scale. This next step reflects my continued commitment to the causes I champion—fairness, equity, and justice. I am content in my place in the world, proud of the work I do, and determined to make a lasting impact. Advocacy is not just a job for me; it is a calling that allows me to challenge injustices, empower others, and honour the legacy of love and determination that brought me to where I am today. Rising Above Dishonest Claims The path of advocacy is not without challenges. Over the years, I’ve encountered dishonest claims from former clients or associates who, when dissatisfied, have accused me of misrepresenting myself as a lawyer. These allegations are baseless and could not be further from the truth. Since 2001, I’ve built my career as a professional advocate in industrial relations and human rights—not as a lawyer, but as someone dedicated to standing with those in need. While such claims can be triggering for someone like me, living with severe PTSD, I remain steadfast in my commitment to this work. My strength to continue comes from my daughters, my family, and my friends, who remind me daily of the importance of what I do. Advocacy is not about titles or credentials—it’s about action, impact, and staying true to one’s values. For me, there is no greater fulfilment than knowing I’ve made a difference in the lives of others.

Employment contracts are much like light switches. They govern the flow of energy (or work) in the employment relationship, keeping the light (employment) on. But when the time comes for that light to be turned off – when employment ends – someone has to flip the switch. This is where resignation, dismissal, and deeds of settlement come into play. Let’s break it down simply. Who Flips the Switch? When an employment relationship ends, the light switch – the employment contract – must be turned off by someone. But who does it depends on the circumstances: • Resignation: This happens when the employee decides to turn off the switch. It’s a voluntary act where the employee signals their intent to end their role within the organisation. Typically, the employee provides notice as outlined in their contract or industrial agreements. • Dismissal: In this case, it’s the employer who flips the switch. Dismissal occurs when the employer decides to terminate the employment relationship. This could be due to redundancy, performance issues, misconduct, or other factors. Employers must follow strict legal and contractual obligations when dismissing an employee to ensure fairness and compliance with the law. While both result in the light being turned off, who flips the switch makes a big difference in terms of legal and reputational implications. Why Does It Matter Who Turns Off the Switch? The difference between resignation and dismissal isn’t just semantics – it has real-world implications: 1. Legal Rights and Obligations Resignation generally doesn’t give rise to claims such as unfair dismissal unless it was forced (known as constructive dismissal). Dismissal, on the other hand, can trigger claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, or adverse action, depending on the circumstances. 2. Notice and Entitlements When an employee resigns, they’re usually required to provide notice as outlined in their employment contract. If they fail to do so, the employer may have grounds to deduct certain entitlements. Conversely, if an employer dismisses an employee, they must provide notice or payment in lieu, except in cases of serious misconduct. 3. Reputation and Future Prospects Resignation often carries less stigma than dismissal. Being able to state on future job applications that you resigned, rather than being dismissed, can have a significant impact on career opportunities. What Is a Deed of Settlement, and Why Include Resignation? When the employment relationship ends in a mutually agreed way, it’s common to formalise the terms in a deed of settlement. This legally binding agreement sets out the conditions under which the contract is terminated and ensures both parties understand their rights and obligations. One key feature of many deeds of settlement is the inclusion of resignation. Here’s why: 1. Clarity and Certainty Including resignation in the deed makes it clear that the employee voluntarily flipped the switch, ending the contract. This avoids disputes about whether the employment ended by resignation, dismissal, or mutual termination. 2. Avoiding Legal Claims If the deed specifies that the employee resigned, it can preclude claims such as unfair dismissal, general protections, or breach of contract. This creates a “clean break” for both parties, ensuring the end of the employment relationship is final and without ongoing disputes. 3. Reputation Management For the employee, agreeing to include resignation can protect their professional reputation. It allows them to move forward without the potential stigma of being dismissed. 4. Compliance and Finality The deed ensures all outstanding obligations – such as notice payments, leave entitlements, and waivers of claims – are settled. By documenting the reason for termination, it reduces the risk of misunderstandings or further disputes. An Analogy: Turning Off the Light Switch Think of an employment contract as a light switch. As long as the switch is on, the employment relationship continues. But when it’s time for the light to go out, someone has to flip the switch – either the employee or the employer. Including resignation in a deed of settlement is like agreeing on who flipped the switch and why. It ensures everyone knows how and why the light went out, leaving no room for disputes or confusion later. The Importance of Getting It Right Whether you’re an employee or an employer, understanding who flips the switch and how it’s recorded can make all the difference. For employees, it can impact your career, your reputation, and your legal rights. For employers, it’s a way to protect your organisation from future claims and ensure compliance with legal obligations. By formalising these details in a deed of settlement, both parties can walk away with clarity and peace of mind, knowing the light has been turned off in a way that’s fair, final, and agreed upon. If you’re facing a situation where a deed of settlement is being proposed, it’s crucial to understand the implications of resignation versus dismissal. Both have their place, but agreeing on who flipped the switch – and documenting it clearly – is essential for a smooth and fair transition. For more guidance on employment contracts, resignations, or dismissals, visit 1800ADVOCATES  or contact us directly.

Cyberbullying already has a devastating impact on mental health, but for individuals diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the consequences can be significantly amplified. PTSD, a severe and persistent mental health condition triggered by trauma, leaves individuals more vulnerable to the emotional and psychological toll of online harassment. Understanding how cyberbullying uniquely affects those with PTSD is crucial to providing effective support and intervention. Amplified Challenges for Individuals with PTSD 1. Heightened Mental Health Struggles Cyberbullying can severely exacerbate the symptoms of PTSD. Victims may experience flashbacks, panic attacks, or heightened anxiety as the online abuse mirrors feelings of helplessness and fear associated with their trauma. The pervasive nature of cyberbullying can make it feel inescapable, intensifying the already overwhelming symptoms of PTSD. 2. Triggering of Traumatic Memories For individuals with PTSD, cyberbullying often triggers traumatic memories, leading to severe emotional distress. Harassers may unknowingly—or deliberately—use language, images, or scenarios reminiscent of the victim’s original trauma, compounding their psychological pain. 3. Increased Social Isolation Social withdrawal is a common coping mechanism for individuals with PTSD, and cyberbullying can worsen this isolation. Fear of further harassment may deter victims from engaging in social platforms or reaching out for help, leaving them feeling increasingly alone and unsupported. 4. Loss of Trust and Safety PTSD is characterised by a heightened sense of danger, and cyberbullying reinforces feelings of vulnerability and insecurity. Victims may lose trust in others, even those offering support, which complicates their recovery and deepens feelings of hopelessness. 5. Physical Health Impacts For individuals with PTSD, the stress of cyberbullying can manifest in more pronounced physical symptoms, such as increased heart rate, sleep disturbances, and heightened cortisol levels. These physical symptoms can further diminish their quality of life and reinforce the cycle of mental and emotional distress. 6. Stigma, Shame, and Victim Blaming People with PTSD may already carry stigma associated with their condition, and cyberbullying can amplify feelings of shame and inadequacy. If the harassment includes mocking their PTSD or its symptoms, victims may internalise the abuse, deepening their mental health challenges. Protective Measures and Support for Victims with PTSD Support for victims of cyberbullying with PTSD must be tailored to their unique needs. Here are some essential strategies: Trauma-Informed Care Providing trauma-informed support ensures that interventions are sensitive to the individual’s experiences and avoid exacerbating their symptoms. Counsellors and mental health professionals trained in PTSD can offer tailored strategies to help victims regain a sense of safety and control. Awareness and Education Greater awareness of the intersection between PTSD and cyberbullying can foster early intervention. Family, friends, and communities must understand the profound impact of online harassment on individuals with trauma histories. Support Networks Social connections are critical for recovery. Families and friends can play a key role by offering empathy and understanding, helping victims feel less isolated and more empowered to seek help. Legal Protections and Advocacy For individuals with PTSD, knowing that legal protections against cyberbullying exist can provide a sense of justice and empowerment. Advocacy groups and legal support can assist in holding perpetrators accountable and deterring further harassment. Moving Forward The intersection of cyberbullying and PTSD is a pressing issue requiring greater societal attention. If you or someone you know has PTSD and is experiencing cyberbullying, it’s crucial to seek professional help immediately. Trauma-informed counselling, strong social support, and legal recourse can make a significant difference in protecting mental health and reclaiming control over life. Together, we can work toward a digital landscape where empathy prevails over cruelty, ensuring a safer environment for everyone. Sources Communicating with People with Trauma-Related Disorders Insights into how trauma affects communication and recovery, emphasising the importance of supportive interactions. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) A comprehensive overview of PTSD, including its causes, symptoms, and effects on individuals. Dealing with Trauma Guidance on managing trauma, particularly in young people, and its connection to PTSD. Diagnosis and Treatment of PTSD Detailed guidelines for understanding and treating PTSD, focusing on trauma-informed care. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and the Nature of Trauma Explores how trauma shapes the experience and memory of individuals with PTSD, highlighting the disorder’s complexities.

At 1800ADVOCATES, we are dedicated to providing expert advocacy services for individuals navigating challenges in employment, human rights, and related areas. While our leadership team holds qualifications, including Bachelor of Laws (LLB), we are not practising lawyers, and our services are not offered as legal advice. Instead, we operate as professional advocates, ensuring clients have the support they need to address workplace disputes, human rights complaints, and other advocacy matters. Our Role as Advocates We assist clients with matters such as unfair dismissal, discrimination, sexual harassment, workers’ compensation appeals, and more. Our services focus on representation in relevant commissions and tribunals, but it is important to note that we are not legal practitioners. Any information or support provided is offered in our capacity as employment and human rights advocates, not as lawyers. If you require legal advice or court representation, we recommend consulting a qualified legal practitioner. Advocacy Across Commissions and Tribunals We provide representation and support in a variety of state, territory, and federal commissions and tribunals, including: Commonwealth Jurisdiction Fair Work Commission (FWC):  Unfair dismissal, general protections, workplace bullying, and employment disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC):  Complaints of discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation under federal laws. State and Territory Jurisdictions New South Wales NSW Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC):  Public sector employment disputes. NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB):  Complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Queensland Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC):  Employment disputes under state legislation. Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC):  Discrimination and harassment complaints. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT):  Guardianship matters, discrimination disputes, and tenancy issues. Victoria Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT):  Equal opportunity and discrimination complaints. Western Australia WA Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC):  State-based workplace disputes. Equal Opportunity Commission WA (EOC WA):  Discrimination complaints. South Australia South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET):  Public sector and private sector disputes. Equal Opportunity Commission SA:  Discrimination and harassment complaints. Tasmania Tasmanian Industrial Commission (TIC):  Employment-related disputes. Equal Opportunity Tasmania (EOT):  Discrimination and harassment complaints. Australian Capital Territory ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT):  Discrimination complaints and other disputes. Northern Territory NT Anti-Discrimination Commission:  Discrimination and harassment complaints. NT Industrial Relations Commission:  Workplace disputes. Specialised Advocacy on Request In addition to employment and human rights matters, we also offer assistance in specialised areas, including: Workers’ Compensation Appeals:  Advocacy and support in preparing appeals. National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS):  Representation in disputes or appeals involving the NDIS. Educational Disputes:  Advocacy for families in matters such as school suspensions or exclusions. Referrals for Broader Assistance If your matter falls outside our scope of operations, we can provide referrals to qualified practitioners or specialists who can assist further. Disclaimer This communication and any attachments may contain confidential, private, or legally privileged information and may be protected by copyright. It is intended for the recipient(s) only and should only be used in an authorised manner. Unauthorised use, review, alteration, transmission, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited. While the information provided may be useful, it is not a substitute for legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For legal advice, we recommend consulting a qualified legal practitioner. We provide this information in our capacity as Employment and Human Rights Advocates, not as legal practitioners. 1800ADVOCATES Pty Ltd accepts no liability for any costs orders or financial consequences arising from matters progressing before the Fair Work Commission or other legal forums. Should you require legal advice, we encourage you to seek assistance from a qualified legal professional. Transparency and Integrity At 1800ADVOCATES, we are committed to transparency and integrity. By clearly outlining the scope of our services, we ensure our clients are informed and supported at every step. If you have any questions or need assistance, please reach out to us. We are here to help you navigate your advocacy needs with confidence and care.

FACTS Coles provided employees at a warehouse with Milo drinking chocolate to enjoy during their breaks. One employee had a unique way of consuming Milo by mixing it with other ingredients of his own creation. He would take a small amount of Milo home daily to blend it with drinking chocolate, coffee, and raw sugar, bringing the mixture back to work the following day. Upon receiving a report that the employee was seen taking Milo without authorization, Coles security stopped and questioned him as he left work. During the encounter, the employee provided conflicting responses, mentioning both bringing the Milo from home and taking it from work. Subsequently, Coles suspended the employee and conducted a formal inquiry eleven days later. During the investigation, the employee clarified his process and expressed feeling surprised and bewildered by the aggressive questioning from security. Ultimately, Coles terminated the employee, citing a violation of its code of conduct due to the unauthorized removal of Milo and dishonesty during the security interrogation. QUESTION: Was the termination of the employee unjust, considering the employer's pre-dismissal procedure? VERDICT: The Fair Work Commission acknowledged that on the specific day, the employee inadvertently left some Milo behind, prompting him to bring the mixture to work and store it in his bag instead of his locker. The commission determined that the employee consumed the mixture only at work and took it home for personal use. Notably, Coles supplied Milo for employee consumption at the workplace, which the employee complied with. The security guard's questioning failed to yield substantial responses due to the interrogative approach. Given the circumstances, the employee's confusion was reasonable and did not indicate deceitfulness. Coles' deficient investigation led to the wrongful dismissal of the employee for an innocent action. Consequently, the commission ruled in favor of reinstating the employee.

The case of HOMES v Coles Group Ltd [2014] FWC 1013 is a notable example of how the handling of workplace investigations can have a significant impact on the fairness of dismissal decisions. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) in this case emphasised the critical importance of conducting proper and thorough investigations before taking disciplinary action against employees. Let's delve into the facts, the issues considered, and the FWC's ultimate decision. Background Facts Coles Group Ltd provided its warehouse employees with Milo drinking chocolate to enjoy during their breaks. One employee, Mr. Homes, had a unique preference for mixing Milo with drinking chocolate, coffee, and raw sugar to create a special blend. His process involved taking a small amount of Milo home daily to prepare the mixture and bringing it back to work the next day for his own consumption. The situation escalated when Coles management received a report alleging that Mr. Homes was seen spooning Milo into his bag. As he was leaving work that day, security stopped him and conducted an aggressive interrogation. Understandably, the employee was caught off guard and gave mixed responses, including that he both took Milo from work and brought it from home. Following this incident, Mr. Homes was suspended, and Coles initiated a formal inquiry 11 days later. During the inquiry, Mr. Homes explained his practice of preparing his mixture at home and expressed his confusion during the security questioning. Despite his explanation, Coles decided to terminate his employment, citing a breach of its code of conduct and dishonesty during the investigation. Key Issue The central question in this case was whether Mr. Homes’ dismissal was unfair, especially considering the procedures Coles followed before making the decision to terminate his employment. FWC’s Decision The Fair Work Commission scrutinised the events leading up to Mr. Homes' dismissal and the way Coles conducted its investigation. Several crucial points influenced the FWC’s decision: 1. Purpose of the Milo: The FWC found that the Milo was provided by Coles for employees' consumption at work, which is precisely what Mr. Homes was using it for, albeit with his own mixture. It was clear that his actions did not extend beyond the permitted use. 2. The Day of the Incident: The Commission accepted Mr. Homes' account that he had forgotten to take his usual portion home that day. As a result, he put the pre-made mixture into his bag rather than storing it in his locker. 3. Aggressive Interrogation by Security: The FWC criticised the manner in which Coles’ security personnel questioned Mr. Homes. The aggressive nature of the interrogation led to confused and inconsistent responses from the employee, which the FWC deemed understandable under the circumstances. This confusion did not amount to dishonesty. 4. Substandard Investigation: The Commission concluded that Coles’ investigation was inadequate. The company failed to consider the employee's explanation fully and did not provide a fair opportunity for him to clarify his actions. As a result, the dismissal was based on flawed assumptions rather than a comprehensive understanding of the facts. 5. Outcome: The FWC ruled that Mr. Homes’ dismissal was unfair. The investigation's shortcomings, coupled with the employee's plausible explanation and the absence of genuine dishonesty, led to the conclusion that Coles had acted prematurely in terminating his employment. The Commission ordered that Mr. Homes be reinstated to his position. Key Takeaways for Employers This case highlights the importance of fair and effective investigative procedures in workplace misconduct allegations. Employers should be aware of the following: - Conduct thorough investigations: Ensure that all facts are properly gathered and reviewed before making disciplinary decisions. Employees must be given a fair chance to explain their actions. - Avoid aggressive questioning: Security personnel or management should approach investigations with neutrality and respect. Aggressive questioning can lead to misunderstandings and may not yield reliable information. - Focus on context: Consider the context of the employee’s actions and the intent behind them. In this case, the FWC found that Mr. Homes’ actions were aligned with the intended use of the Milo provided by the employer. - Procedural fairness is key: Employers must ensure that any dismissal process complies with the principles of procedural fairness. Failure to do so may result in findings of unfair dismissal and orders for reinstatement, which can be both costly and reputationally damaging. By taking these lessons to heart, employers can mitigate the risk of unfair dismissal claims and foster a fairer workplace culture. For more insights on workplace rights and employment disputes, visit our website at 1800ADVOCATES.au.

Today marks a significant shift in the landscape of Australian workplace rights with the introduction of the "right to disconnect." This new legal development, effective from today, aims to empower employees by recognising their right to disengage from work-related communications outside of their agreed working hours. The move reflects a growing global trend towards prioritising work-life balance and protecting workers from the constant demands of being "always on." What Is the Right to Disconnect? The right to disconnect refers to an employee's entitlement to disengage from work-related communications, such as emails, phone calls, and messages, during their personal time. This right ensures that employees are not expected to respond to work demands outside of their scheduled hours, allowing them to fully enjoy their personal time without the stress of after-hours work obligations. Why Is This Right Important? The modern workplace, driven by advancements in technology, often blurs the lines between work and personal life. The expectation that employees are available around the clock can lead to burnout, stress, and a lack of work-life balance. The right to disconnect is crucial in addressing these issues, ensuring that employees have the time to recharge and maintain their mental and physical health. Legal Framework and Implementation While the concept of the right to disconnect has been discussed globally, its formal recognition in Australia is a recent development. The new law, effective from today, establishes clear boundaries for after-hours work communications, reinforcing the importance of work-life balance in Australian workplaces. Under this new framework, employers are required to respect the agreed working hours of their employees and refrain from making unreasonable demands for after-hours work. This legal development is rooted in the broader principles of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which already provides protections related to reasonable working hours and employer obligations to manage work-related stress under Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws. Implications for Employers and Employees For employers, the introduction of the right to disconnect means a need to revisit workplace policies and ensure compliance with the new law. Clear guidelines and expectations should be communicated to all staff to prevent misunderstandings and ensure that the workplace culture supports this right. Employees, on the other hand, should feel empowered to enforce their right to disconnect. If work-related communication outside of agreed hours becomes excessive or unreasonable, employees now have a legal basis to address the issue with their employer. Looking Ahead The formal recognition of the right to disconnect is a progressive step forward in Australian workplace law, aligning the country with global trends in employee welfare and work-life balance. As the implementation of this new right begins, it will be essential for both employers and employees to adapt to these changes, fostering a healthier, more balanced work environment for all. As always, staying informed and proactive about your rights and obligations is key to navigating these changes effectively. The right to disconnect represents not just a legal shift, but a cultural one, redefining the way we approach work in the modern era.

The issue of workers' privacy is once again under the spotlight as the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) calls on the Albanese Government to address significant gaps in Australia's privacy laws. This concern arises from an emerging trend where employers, particularly in the resource sector, are requiring prospective employees to undergo mandatory blood testing as a condition of employment. The Rise of Mandatory Blood Testing A recent paper released by the Centre for Future Work, titled *No Blood - No Job*, explores this concerning development. Authored by Dr. Lisa Heap, the report highlights how some employers are now collecting sensitive personal information, including blood samples, as a routine part of their recruitment process. This practice, according to the report, is becoming increasingly normalised and raises serious questions about the balance between employer needs and employee privacy rights. Worker Experiences and Concerns The Centre for Future Work conducted interviews with workers who had been required to provide blood samples as part of their application process for jobs in the resource sector. The experiences shared by these workers are troubling. Many felt pressured to consent to these invasive tests to remain in the running for employment, with little understanding of why the tests were necessary or how their data would be used. One worker even reported losing a job opportunity after refusing to consent to the blood test, while another had to undergo follow-up tests at their own expense. There is a level of acceptance in the resource sector for certain types of testing, such as urine tests, particularly where safety concerns involving heavy machinery are at play. However, the interviewed workers expressed significant unease about the introduction of blood testing, describing it as overly intrusive and an overreach into personal health matters that should remain between them and their doctors. The Legal and Ethical Implications The report underscores the inadequacies of current privacy protections under the Fair Work Act, which do not extend the same level of protection to employee records as those provided under the Privacy Act. This loophole allows employers to exploit their position of power during recruitment, often disregarding privacy considerations. While privacy laws do apply to the collection of sensitive information before employment, the current framework is insufficient to prevent the misuse of such data. The Call for Stronger Protections To address these issues, the ETU is advocating for a unified, worker-centric system that would close existing gaps in privacy protections. The report suggests either removing the Privacy Act's exemption for employee records or incorporating comprehensive privacy protections into the Fair Work Act. The underlying principle should be that employers only access the minimal amount of information necessary for employment purposes, and that workers, along with their representatives, should have a say in what constitutes "strictly necessary" information. Conclusion The ETU's push for stronger privacy laws reflects growing concerns about the invasive practices becoming standard in some industries. As the government reviews privacy legislation, it is crucial that the rights of workers are front and centre in these discussions. Protecting workers from unwarranted intrusions into their personal health information is not just a legal obligation; it is a fundamental aspect of ensuring fairness and dignity in the workplace. "No Blood - No Job" serves as a timely reminder of the importance of safeguarding workers' privacy rights, and the need for robust legal frameworks to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable job seekers. As this debate continues, the voices of workers and their advocates must be heard to ensure that privacy protections keep pace with evolving employment practices. or