Annemarie Clarke Chesaites v Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1086

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.527F - Application to deal with a sexual harassment dispute Annemarie Clarke Chesaites v Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd (SH2025/207) DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN SYDNEY, 24 APRIL 2026 Application to deal with a sexual harassment dispute – jurisdictional objection – multiple applications – concurrent Australian Human Rights Commission complaint – s 734B – bar to concurrent proceedings where common conduct relied upon – distinct conduct relied upon – no bar to concurrent proceedings – jurisdictional objection dismissed. [1] Annemarie Clarke Chesaites (the Applicant) has made an application under s 527F of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Commission to deal with a sexual harassment dispute. The application was filed on 11 December 2025. The applicant was employed by Sentinel Community Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent) when the conduct the subject of the dispute occurred. The applicant asserts that four of her former colleagues harassed her. [2] The Respondent seeks that the matter be dismissed. That application is brought on three grounds. First, s 734B of the Act operates as a bar to the Applicant’s claim in this Commission because the Applicant has filed a concurrent complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). Second, that the proceedings are of no utility. Third, that they are an abuse of process. [3] For the reasons that follow I find that none of the grounds are made out. The application to dismiss the matter is therefore refused and the matter will proceed to conference in accordance with s 527R on a date to be fixed. Background [4] The applicant worked for the respondent from November 2023 until she was dismissed on 26 June 2025. The entire period of the employment appears to have involved ongoing disputation with multiple internal disciplinary actions, complaints, and investigations. There were complaints made by the applicant about the conduct of her colleagues. There were complaints made by her colleagues about the applicant’s conduct. The disputation continued after the employment ceased with the applicant making applications and complaints to various bodies including WorkSafe, this Commission, immigration officials, and the AHRC. [2026] FWC 1086 DECISION -- 1 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 2 [5] The background to the substantive application before this Commission can be stated briefly. The respondent provides community services in the aged care and disability support sector. In October 2023 the applicant arrived in Australia from the United Kingdom and was offered a management role with the respondent. On 1 November 2025 she commenced full- time employment as a Level 5 Support Worker at Sentinel Community Services, in Taree NSW. Her duties expanded from support worker to managerial and supervisory responsibilities soon after she was employed. By March 2024, the applicant was performing duties as Organisation Manager/Supported Independent Living Manager and was responsible for managing staff and overseeing care plans. [6] From 15 November 2023 to June 2025 the Applicant made a series of complaints alleging bullying, inappropriate conduct, and sexual harassment. Those allegations were about incidents of verbal intimidation, exclusion, and hostile behaviour. Allegations of sexual harassment were also made against colleagues. They went to unwanted invitations to attend drinks and other social outings on a weekly basis, inappropriate comments about the Applicant’s appearance, the spreading of rumours and innuendo, and repeated staring at the Applicant. The respondent’s investigations into those complaints found them to be unsubstantiated. [7] The Applicant was also the subject of complaints. Those complaints included that she had bullied colleagues and that her performance was poor. The respondent claims that verbal warnings were given to the applicant commencing as early as April 2024. Written warnings followed. The first in October 2024. It is said that the applicant was also put a performance improvement plan, provided ongoing training, and received coaching. The Applicant was suspended in February 2025, and an investigation was conducted into various complaints. The investigation concluded that the applicant had persistent unsatisfactory performance, engaged in bullying in the workplace, provided misleading information to colleagues, breached NDIS Practice Standards, and breached the respondent’s code of conduct. The Applicant did not engage with the investigation process. The outcome of the investigation was a finding that the applicant be dismissed for gross misconduct. The Applicant provided medical certificates that stated she was unfit to work from 19 February 2025. A workers’ compensation claim was made. The respondent acted on the investigation report in June 2025 and dismissed the Applicant for gross misconduct. [8] On 11 December 2025 the applicant lodged the current application for the Commission to deal with a sexual harassment dispute. She also lodged an application with the AHRC to deal with allegations of racial discrimination, sex discrimination, age discrimination, and victimisation. Those claims are said to arise under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and Age Discrimination Act 2004. Multiple applications [9] The Respondent’s first contention is that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute as the Applicant is statute barred from bringing the claim by s 734B of the Act. The respondent submits that s 734B applies because the Applicant has made a complaint to the AHRC about the same or related conduct to the conduct complained about in the Commission. Where a complaint has already been made to the AHRC a dispute cannot be raised in this Commission in relation to the same conduct. The Respondent claims that the Applicant is -- 2 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 3 "forum-shopping" by making two applications based on a single set of facts, which is contrary to the legislative intent. [10] The Applicant accepts that s 734B of the Fair Work Act prohibits multiple applications about the same conduct. However, she argues that her application in this Commission is only in relation to a dispute dealing with particular conduct that she says amounts to sexual harassment and that her AHRC complaint is about other conduct which she says amounts to race, sex, and age discrimination. The Applicant contends that the AHRC complaint is not made in relation to the same conduct complained about in sexual harassment application. Construction of s 734B [11] The application requires consideration of the proper construction of s 734B. The proper approach to the construction of statutes is well settled. It begins with the text, read in its context and having regard to purpose. [12] Section 734B provides as follows: 734B Sexual harassment FWC applications and sexual harassment court applications—interaction with anti-discrimination laws (1) A person who alleges they have been sexually harassed in contravention of Division 2 of Part 3-5A must not make either of the following applications: (a) a sexual harassment FWC application (other than an application that consists solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order); (b) a sexual harassment court application; in relation to particular conduct if: (c) an application or complaint under an anti-discrimination law or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 has been made by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the conduct; and (d) the application or complaint has not: (i) been withdrawn by the person who made the application; or (ii) failed for want of jurisdiction. (2) A person who alleges they have been sexually harassed in contravention of Division 2 of Part 3-5A must not make an application or complaint under an anti-discrimination law or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 in relation to particular conduct if: (a) either of the following applications has been made by, or on behalf of, the person in relation to the conduct: (i) a sexual harassment FWC application (other than an application that consists solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order); (ii) a sexual harassment court application; and (b) the application referred to in paragraph (a) has not: -- 3 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 4 (i) been withdrawn by the person who made the application; or (ii) failed for want of jurisdiction. [13] Relevant here, the text provides that an applicant who alleges they have been sexually harassed must not make a sexual harassment application, other than for orders that the harassment stop, in relation to particular conduct if an application or complaint under an anti- discrimination law or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (AHRC Act) has been made and the AHRC application or complaint has not been withdrawn or failed for want of jurisdiction. The provision prevents multiple complaints or applications in relation to particular conduct. [14] The statutory context includes that s 734B is found in Division 3 of Part 6-1 of Chapter 6. Section 719 describes the Division as preventing multiple applications or complaints. Division 3 is entitled “Preventing multiple actions”. The Division is broken up into sub- divisions that deal with a number of types of applications. They deal with the following types of applications: equal remuneration applications, applications and complaints relating to dismissal, general protections applications that do not relate to dismissal, sexual harassment applications, actions relating to unfair deactivation or unfair termination, and services contract actions. [15] The factor that gives rise to the prohibition on multiple actions in each subdivision is different. Going to the non-sexual harassment matters: Equal remuneration applications cannot be made if proceedings for an alternative remedy have commenced. For dismissal applications and complaints the general rule is that multiple applications or complaints in relation to the same dismissal cannot be brought. For non-dismissal general protections applications court applications cannot be made in relation to conduct over which an application or complaint has been made under an anti‑discrimination law including the AHRC Act. Actions relating to unfair deactivation or unfair termination must not be made if other deactivation proceedings have been commenced in relation to the person and the digital labour platform. Other deactivation proceedings are specified in regulations. The regulations specify proceedings under Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 (Vic.), the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the Owner - Drivers (Contracts and Disputes) Act 2007 (WA). Multiple services contract actions application cannot be made under Division 4 of Part 3A 5 (unfair contract terms) if other review proceedings have been commenced in relation to the services contract. Other review proceedings are defined to be proceedings under a provision of a law of a State or Territory that expressly provide for a court, commission or tribunal to do make an order or determination affecting a services contract on unfairness grounds or proceedings in relation to a services contract under a provision of a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, specified in the regulations. The regulations specify proceedings under sections 20, 21 and 250 of the Australian Consumer Law. [16] The following table summarises the manner in which multiple actions are prohibited under Division 3 in matters other than sexual harassment matters: -- 4 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 5 Type of Application Prohibition/Rule Disqualifying factor Subdivision A Equal remuneration applications Application prohibited if proceedings for an alternative remedy to ensure equal remuneration have commenced and not discontinued or failed for want of jurisdiction Other proceedings for alternative remedy to ensure equal remuneration Subdivision B Dismissal applications and complaints Application prohibited if another application or complaint is made in relation to the same dismissal unless other applications withdrawn or failed due to want of jurisdiction or in Commission matters failed otherwise dealt with Another application or complaint in relation to the same dismissal Subdivision C General protections (non-dismissal) applications Application prohibited if an application or complaint has been made under anti-discrimination law (including AHRC Act) have been made in relation to the conduct unless anti- discrimination law matter has been withdrawn or failed for want of jurisdiction Another application or complaint under anti-discrimination law in relation to the conduct Subdivision DA Actions relating to unfair deactivation or unfair termination Application prohibited if other deactivation proceedings have commenced in relation to the person and the digital labour platform, unless discontinued or failed for want of jurisdiction Other deactivation proceedings in relation to the person and the digital labour platform Subdivision E Services contract actions Application prohibited under Division 4 of Part 3A 5 (unfair contract terms) if other review proceedings in relation to the services contract have commenced, unless discontinued or failed for want of jurisdiction Other contract review proceedings in relation to the same services contract -- 5 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 6 [17] As can be seen, the legislature has used different wording in the rules prohibiting multiple actions thus requiring a different enquiry in each type of matter as to whether another action will give rise to the statutory prohibition. For sexual harassment matter the focus is on whether the applications are about the same conduct. This context confirms the text that s 734B prevents multiple complaints or applications in relation to particular conduct. [18] The purpose of the provision is evident from its text and from the context discussed above. There is also an indication of the purpose of s 734B in a note following s 527CA. Section 527CA makes clear that the Part 3-5A, which includes the prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace, does not exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with the Part. The note at the end of the provision draws attention to the s 734B as follows: Note 2: Generally, section 734B prevents multiple applications or complaints under both this Act and State and Territory anti‑discrimination laws in relation to the same conduct. [19] Extrinsic materials such as the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that introduced a provision may also assist in divining purpose. Section 734B was introduced into the Act by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. That Bill included the prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace and mechanisms for addressing complaints of sexual harassment including powers for the Commission to make orders that such conduct stop and to deal with disputes by way of conciliation and by arbitration with the consent of certain parties. The amendments introduced a positive obligation to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Court action was made available to enforce that obligation including powers to award compensation and civil penalties for past contraventions. An applicant applies to the Commission under s 527F to deal with a dispute that relates to a contravention of the prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace. [20] The proposed amendments included restrictions on multiple actions being taken in relation to the same conduct such that applicants are barred from commencing an action under the Act, except for a stop sexual harassment order, if they have already filed for relief over the same conduct under federal or state anti-discrimination laws. Clause 734B of the Bill is the provision that propsed that restriction. [21] The Explanatory Memorandum to Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 described the proposed s 734B as follows: Clause 734B Sexual harassment FWC applications and sexual harassment court applications--interaction with anti-discrimination laws 531. Clause 734B would prevent a person from pursuing multiple remedies for sexual harassment under both the FW Act and an anti-discrimination law or under the AHRC Act. For example, a person could not seek a remedy for a contravention of the prohibition on sexual harassment in connection with work under both the FW Act and the SD Act. 532. Clause 734B would not prevent a person who has made an application for a stop sexual harassment order from pursuing a remedy in relation to the conduct under an anti- discrimination law or under the AHRC Act. However, if the person later made an application to the FWC seeking a remedy in relation to the sexual harassment, they would be prevented from also seeking a remedy under another law. -- 6 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 7 [22] Clause 734B became law without amendment. The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear its purpose which was to prevent multiple applications about the same conduct. The purpose evident in the Explanatory Memorandum accords with the text and context discussed above. When applying s 734B the focus is on the particular conduct that gave rise to the sexual harassment application. If another application has been made under an anti-discrimination law or the AHRC Act in relation to that same conduct an application under the Act must not be made. The two applications [23] Here the applicant has made an application under s 527F of the Act and another application under the AHRC Act. The question is whether the application under s 527F is in relation to particular conduct that is also the subject of the AHRC application. [24] A s 527F application is commenced by filling out a form. The Applicant’s form indicates that she does not seek a stop sexual harassment order but asks the Commission to otherwise deal with dispute alleging sexual harassment. The application forms asks the Applicant if a complaint has been to another agency or organisation about the sexual harassment. The Applicant responded that she had made an application to the AHRC but states that the AHRC application makes no allegation about sexual harassment. [25] The originating process in the AHRC is also a form. It asks on what basis the complaint is made and required the applicant to state the bases of the claim by ticking one or more of a number of boxes. The applicant answered by by checking the following boxes: I have been discriminated against because of my: Age Sex Race (this includes colour national origin, descent or etrhnic origin) [26] The following boxes were not checked: I have been sexually harassed I have experienced sex based harassment I have been subjected to a hostile workplace on the ground of sex [27] Attached to the s 527F application is a lengthy submission. The submission is relied upon to explain the alleged sexual harassment. It includes information about the parties and provides a statement by the Applicant. The statement sets out the nature of the employment, the Respondent’s training regime that touched upon sexual harassment, and a series of incidents involving four colleagues which allege that each of them had engaged in conduct that amounted to sexual harassment. The impact of that conduct on the applicant is also described, and annexures are referred to which include medical evidence of harm suffered. The document goes on to describe how the conduct amounted to a contravention on the prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace. It then claims that the Respondent was vicariously liable for the contravention. -- 7 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 8 [28] The AHRC application is also accompanied by a detailed submission which is stated to be provided for the purpose of conciliation and mediation purposes. That document describes the parties, the employment, the training, and incidents of the conduct of colleagues grouped under headings of racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and age discrimination. The impact of that conduct is then described including medical impacts. [29] The two submissions attached to each claim provides the particulars of the conduct complained of. The conduct particularised in the s 527 application is different to the conduct the subject of the complaint to the AHRC. [30] Consequently, the particular conduct complained of in the application under s 527F is not the same conduct complained about in the AHRC application. In those circumstances the prohibition in s 734B is not enlivened and the first ground of the application to dismiss fails. Utility and abuse of process [31] The Respondent relies on two other grounds to dismiss the proceedings: the absence of utility and abuse of process. [32] The Respondents submissions on both of these points are misconceived. [33] In respect of utility the Respondent submits that: The Applicant is no longer employed by the Respondent, and never will be. The Commission has no power to award damages. In short, were the Commission to entertain the Application, it would lack the power to make any relevant order. For this reason alone the Commission should dismiss the Application. [34] That submission is rejected. It ignores the role of the Commission in otherwise dealing with a dispute under s 527R. That the employment has ended or that no orders are sought are irrelevant to that function. The Commission’s role in dealing with sexual harassment disputes (other than those consisting of an application for stop sexual harassment orders) is similar to its function in general protections applications involving dismissal under Part 3-1 of the Act. The Commission’s role in this matter is not to make orders but rather to attempt to resolve the matter, and should that prove unsuccessful, to issue a certificate to enable the application to progress to a court of competent jurisdiction or, by consent of relevant parties, to arbitration of the dispute in the Commission. [35] So much is clear from the text of s 527R. It reads: 527R Dealing with a sexual harassment dispute (other than by arbitration) (1) If: (a) an application is made under section 527F for the FWC to deal with a dispute; and (b) the application does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order; -- 8 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 9 then the FWC must deal with the dispute (other than by arbitration). Note: The FWC may deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)). (2) Any conference conducted for the purposes of dealing with the dispute (other than by arbitration) must be conducted in private, despite subsection 592(3). Note: For conferences, see section 592. (3) If the FWC is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute (other than by arbitration) have been, or are likely to be, unsuccessful, then: (a) the FWC must issue a certificate to that effect; and (b) if the FWC considers, taking into account all the materials before it, that arbitration under section 527S, or a sexual harassment court application, in relation to the dispute would not have a reasonable prospect of success, the FWC must advise the parties accordingly. [36] The power to arbitrate the dispute, contingent upon the agreement of relevant parties, is provided for in s 527S. [37] There is clear utility in the application and this ground is rejected. [38] The abuse of process ground must also fail. The Commission does not possess an inherent power to dismiss matters. It must have reference to a head of power in the Act. The relevant power for dismissing applications is in s 587 of the Act: 587 Dismissing applications (1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if: (a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; (b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or (c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success. Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A. (2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365, 536LU or 773, or an application under section 527F that does not consist solely of an application for a stop sexual harassment order, on the ground that the application: (a) is frivolous or vexatious; or (b) has no reasonable prospects of success. (3) The FWC may dismiss an application: (a) on its own initiative; or -- 9 of 10 -- [2026] FWC 1086 10 (b) on application. [39] Section 587(2) expressly confines the grounds upon which an application under s 527F can be dismissed. It does not permit the application to be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious or if it has no prospects for success. That leaves s. 587(1)(a) which empowers the Commission to dismiss the matter if it was not properly made. In so far as s 734B may form the basis for a finding that the application was not properly made, I have considered that question and find that the application was properly made. I doubt that the Commission can dismiss a matter on a separate basis being for abuse of process. I do not, in any event, find that the application amounts to an abuse of process and so there is no need to consider that matter further. I agree with the submissions of the Applicant that the matters raised by the Respondent do not meet the strict test associated with findings of abuse of process. The application to dismiss on alleged abuse of process is rejected. [40] Underpinning the Respondent’s application to have the matter dismissed is the Respondent’s view the application is unmeritorious for a number of reasons. That view is properly dealt with in a conference conducted under s 527R. The matter will be listed for Conference in due course. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Hearing details: Determined on the papers. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR798172> -- 10 of 10 --