Sexual harassment complaints present serious challenges for employees and employers, and mishandling a complaint can carry significant legal, financial and reputational risks. A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (Commission), Sewell v dnata Airport Services [2025] FWC 2823, serves as a reminder that poor investigative practises and inadequate support for complainants, can result in findings of unfair dismissal. This decision also highlights the critical importance of close coordination between Human Resources and Safety teams throughout the investigative process and its aftermath.

Facts

Courtney Sewell was employed part time by dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd (dnata), where she enjoyed informal flexible working arrangements. She made a complaint on 9 March 2025 that she had been sexually harassed by a male colleague, leaving her feeling uncomfortable in the workplace.

dnata promptly stood the alleged respondent employee down from his duties and commenced an internal investigation. By late March 2025, dnata had determined that the allegations could not be substantiated and closed the matter without disciplinary action. Ms Sewell was informed that the respondent employee would return to work and that the rostering changes to avoid contact between them could not be made, as this would be discriminatory towards him.

Ms Sewell went on personal leave before ultimately resigning. While dnata explored the possibility of alternative roles for Ms Sewell, they eventually accepted her resignation in May 2025. Ms Sewell subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim, arguing that dnata’s mishandling of her complaint made her feel unsafe at work and had forced her to resign.

Fair Work Commission decision

The matter went to a hearing before the Commission, with the Commission finding:

• Delayed and unclear communication: the investigation outcome was verbally communicated to Ms Sewell but was communicated in writing to the respondent employee. It was only when Ms Sewell requested it, that dnata provided her with an investigation outcome letter;
• Vague findings: the written outcome was vague and ambiguous, with dnata stating they were, “unable to make a finding for some of the allegations raised”, leaving Ms Sewell unsure if any part of her complaint had been substantiated; and
• Failure to mitigate risk: dnata failed to separate Ms Sewell from the male employee and her request for a roster change was subsequently denied on the basis it would discriminate against him.

The Commission noted that dnata was “a large employer with both human resources and industrial relations capability” and its “operational managers are supported by these teams“. Mishandling the aftermath of the complaint created an environment where Ms Sewell felt unsupported and exposed to ongoing psychological risk. It was accepted that Ms Sewell felt that she had no choice but to resign, resulting in the Commission finding the ending of her employment was an unfair dismissal.

Ms Sewell was awarded the maximum compensation, being the equivalent of 6 months’ salary.

Why employers need to take note of this decision – from a safety and investigative perspective

This decision provides a clear signal to employers that the lines between human resources and safety issues continue to blur, and employers are expected to examine psychosocial complaints through both lenses.

Employers need to appreciate the significance and seriousness of sexual harassment claims by treating them with urgency, transparency and care, as well as a safety risk. A failure to manage complaints of this nature appropriately can cause significant harm to an employee’s psychological and physical wellbeing, while also exposing the organisation to litigation and liability for breaches of its legal obligations.

Some key takeaways for employers from this decision include:

1. Timely and transparent investigations

Delays in communicating outcomes to complaints, especially paired with vague and inconclusive language, can leave the complainant feeling dismissed or confused. Instead, employers should:

• • provide written findings promptly after investigations conclude; and
  • use clear direct language that outlines which allegations were substantiated and what actions will follow.

2. Risk-based operational decisions

Employers must take proactive steps to protect complainants from further harm, even if the outcome of the investigation does not rule in their favour. This includes:

• • adjusting rosters or work arrangements to avoid contact between the complainant and their alleged harasser; and
  • considering psychological safety as part of any operational decisions following a complaint.

3. Clear communication channels

Complainants should not be left guessing about the outcomes of their complaint or the steps being taken to support them. Instead, employers should:

• • ensure all communication is documented and delivered in writing; and
  • provide complainants with a clear understanding of the investigation findings, their rights and any protective measures being implemented.

Working together – Human Resources and Safety

A key takeaway from this decision is the need for employers to ensure coordination between Human Resources and Safety teams when responding to and investigating complaints with a psychosocial element, such as claims of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment claims must be taken seriously and treated with great care during and after the investigation as there are legal, safety and operational implications.

To bridge the gap between the Human Resources and Safety, employers should consider:

• creating protocols for handling serious complaints like harassment to ensure both legal risks and employee wellbeing are being covered;
• training operational managers to recognise when there might be risk to complainants, even after an investigation outcome has been reached; and
• creating a culture where workplace safety and fairness are fostered in every aspect of an investigation.

This article was written by Danielle Flint, Partner and Jasmyn Joseph, Law Graduate.