Publications

A recent Fair Work Commission decision provides important guidance about when individuals can pursue multiple legal claims arising from alleged workplace sexual harassment and discrimination.

In Annemarie Clarke Chesaites v Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1086, Deputy President Slevin considered whether a worker was prevented from pursuing a sexual harassment dispute in the Fair Work Commission (FWC) because she had already lodged a complaint in the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

The Deputy President’s decision carefully examined section 734B of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA), which is designed to prevent multiple proceedings being commenced “in relation to the same conduct”.

Importantly, the FWC confirmed that multiple proceedings are not automatically prohibited merely because they arise from the same employment relationship or involve overlapping factual circumstances. Rather, the key question is whether the separate proceedings concern the same conduct.

Background

The applicant worked for Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd, a provider of aged care and disability support services, from November 2023 until her dismissal in June 2025.

Deputy President Slevin described the employment relationship as involving “ongoing disputation with multiple internal disciplinary actions, complaints, and investigations”.

During her employment, the applicant made numerous complaints alleging bullying, inappropriate conduct and sexual harassment by colleagues. The allegations included unwanted invitations to social outings, comments about her appearance, rumours and innuendo, repeated staring, exclusion from the workplace and verbal intimidation.

The respondent, Sentinel, investigated the complaints and ultimately found them to be unsubstantiated.

Complaints were also made against the applicant concerning alleged bullying, poor performance and misconduct. Sentinel alleged the applicant engaged in bullying conduct herself, breached workplace policies and NDIS Practice Standards, and provided misleading information to colleagues.

The applicant was suspended in February 2025 while an investigation was undertaken with respect to the allegations against her. Following the investigation, Sentinel dismissed the applicant for gross misconduct in June 2025.

After the dismissal, the applicant commenced several complaints and proceedings, including applications to WorkSafe, immigration authorities, the AHRC and the FWC.

The FWC application

The applicant lodged an application under section 527F of the FWA, seeking for the FWC to “deal with” a sexual harassment dispute. Importantly, the application did not seek a stop sexual harassment order.

The applicant also lodged a complaint with the AHRC alleging race discrimination, sex discrimination, age discrimination and victimisation under federal anti-discrimination legislation.

Sentinel argued that the FWC application was barred by operation of section 734B of the FWA on the basis that the applicant had already commenced AHRC proceedings arising from the same factual circumstances.

Sentinel contended that the applicant was improperly “forum shopping” by pursuing multiple avenues arising from the same events.

What does section 734B do?

Section 734B prevents applicants from pursuing multiple remedies in relation to the same conduct. Deputy President Slevin observed that the provision forms part of Division 3 of Part 6-1 of the FWA, titled “Preventing multiple actions”.

The Deputy President noted that the legislation uses different wording for different types of claims throughout the division. In sexual harassment matters, the focus is specifically on whether the applications concern the “same conduct”.

The FWC therefore undertook a detailed analysis of the allegations made in each jurisdiction.

Why the claims were allowed to proceed concurrently

A significant aspect of the decision was the FWC’s close examination of the forms and materials lodged in both jurisdictions.

In the AHRC application, the applicant had selected categories relating to age discrimination, sex discrimination and race discrimination.

However, in the AHRC application, she had not selected the categories indicating:

• sexual harassment;
• sex-based harassment; or
• a hostile workplace environment on the ground of sex.

Deputy President Slevin also examined the detailed written submissions accompanying both applications. While there was some overlap in the broader factual background, the FWC found that the conduct particularised in the FWC application differed from the conduct relied upon in the AHRC complaint.

As a result, the FWC held that section 734B did not prohibit multiple claims on the basis that the proceedings did not concern “the same conduct”. The jurisdictional objection under section 734B was therefore dismissed.

The FWC’s comments about utility

Sentinel also argued that the application had no utility on the basis that the applicant was no longer employed and the FWC could not award damages.

Deputy President Slevin rejected that argument.

The Deputy President emphasised that where an applicant seeks for the FWC to “otherwise deal with” a sexual harassment dispute under section 527R, the FWC’s role is not limited to making orders preventing future conduct.

Rather, the FWC may attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation or conference and, if resolution is unsuccessful, issue a certificate allowing the matter to proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction or potentially arbitration by consent.

Deputy President Slevin likened the process to the FWC’s role in general protections dismissal disputes. Importantly, the termination of employment does not remove the FWC’s ability to perform those functions.

Abuse of process argument rejected

Sentinel further argued that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

Deputy President Slevin also rejected that submission. The Deputy President noted that section 587 of the FWA strictly limits the circumstances in which the FWC may dismiss a section 527F application.

Importantly, section 587(2) expressly prevents the FWC from dismissing these applications on the basis that they are frivolous, vexatious or lacking reasonable prospects of success.

Deputy President Slevin observed that, while Sentinel considered the application to be unmeritorious, those issues were more appropriately dealt with during the dispute resolution process contemplated by section 527R.

Why this decision matters

This decision provides important clarification for workers considering legal action following alleged workplace sexual harassment or discrimination.

The case demonstrates that multiple proceedings are not automatically prohibited merely because they arise from the same employment relationship or involve overlapping events within a workplace. Instead, the critical issue is whether the separate proceedings concern “the same conduct”.

The decision also highlights the importance of carefully framing allegations across jurisdictions. The way complaints are pleaded, including the specific conduct relied upon and the legal categories selected, may significantly affect whether multiple proceedings can continue.

For employers, the case confirms that allegations of “forum shopping” will not automatically succeed where claims involve distinct conduct or distinct statutory causes of action. This means employers may well need to respond to claims in multiple jurisdictions, even if they are based on overlapping conduct.

The decision is also a reminder of the increasingly complex overlap between the FWC, anti-discrimination jurisdictions and other workplace complaint avenues.

Workers who experience workplace sexual harassment or discrimination may potentially have rights under the FWA, federal anti-discrimination legislation, state anti-discrimination legislation, workers compensation schemes and common law. Careful legal advice is therefore critical to ensuring claims are properly structured and rights are preserved across multiple jurisdictions.

This article was published on 1 May 2026 by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website. (www.codea.com.au). If you or a loved one has been injured, use our Personal injury Claim Check now.