When Conduct is Deemed to Occur in the Workplace and the Liability of Employers for the Sexual Harassment of one Co-Worker by Another
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the different approaches of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993 as to whether sexual harassment of one coÂworker by another occurs as a part of the employment relationship. It examines the Court of Appeal and the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding the liability of the same person (Smith) for sexual harassment. The Court of Appeal upheld Smith’s dismissal as it impacted on his employment relationship, while the Human Rights Review Tribunal held Smith’s behaviour was not in the in the course of his involvement in employment. Reasons for the difference between the two decisions are examined, looking in particular at employer liability for the actions of coÂworkers, and the different ways the two Acts deal with such liability. Canadian and Australian approaches to employer liability are examined, noting consistency between the approaches in their human rights and employment legislation. It is suggested that inconsistencies between the Employment Relations Act and the Human Rights may lead to different outcomes regarding employer liability. Finally it is suggested that, given the differences between the two Acts, it would be better for matters of sexual harassment to only be dealt with under the Human Rights Act.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".