A recent Fair Work Commission (Commission) decision has highlighted the importance of following a procedurally fair process when terminating an employee’s employment for misconduct, the failure of which can result in an employee’s reinstatement.
In Susan Edwards v Litchfield Council [2019] FWC 6660 the Commission ordered reinstatement after an employee was dismissed from her role as gatekeeper at a waste transfer station following allegations of theft, fraud and corruption.
The employer commenced an investigation into Ms Edwards’ conduct after receiving a complaint by a co-worker that a customer’s waste was not properly deposited and was potentially unpaid for during Ms Edwards’ shift.
Rather than seeking a response from Ms Edwards to the allegations, the employer reviewed CCTV footage and prepared a report in relation to her conduct, which included that Ms Edwards’ son regularly visited her at the waste station.
The employer issued Ms Edwards with a first and final warning, which stated that any further instances of unacceptable behaviour could lead to her dismissal.
Ms Edwards was subsequently dismissed following further allegations of making illegal transactions at work, including failing to take payments from customers and recording transaction, amounting to potential theft, fraud and corruption.
The Commission held that the employer’s targeted action to capture information relevant to other breaches was significant and procedurally unfair.
Notably, Ms Edwards was not offered a support person during the meeting where she was issued the first and final warning, nor was she shown the CCTV footage or provided with a log of transactions.
Before the Commission, Ms Edwards was able to provide a series of reasonable explanations in response to the allegations against her.
The Commission found Ms Edwards had some discretion in her role with respect to the application of fees and charges depending on the nature of the load, and whether it involved residents or non-residents. This, coupled with a lack of documented guidelines establishing codes of conduct, led the Commission to find there was no valid reason for dismissal.
Ordering reinstatement of the employee, the Commission noted that issuing a first and final warning was surprising and was not supported by the evidence.
The decision highlights that employers need to consider form and substance before moving to dismiss an employee. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee for misconduct should be based on substantiated allegations which are supported by evidence. The process which leads to the dismissal is equally important – employees must be provided with sufficient particulars of the allegations, and provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Moores assists employers with navigating disciplinary matters and responding to misconduct, including dismissal. For assistance with workplace relations matters, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Land tax rules in Victoria are providing a disincentive to good management of property by charities. And it seems that some charities may be slugged with land tax for trying to be good stewards of their real estate.
Charities are under a legal obligation to ensure their property is applied for charitable purposes. They are also under a governance (and moral) obligation to use their assets to maximum benefit for the charity.
But Victorian law is currently proving a barrier for charities who want to take opportunities to maximise the benefit of any spare capacity or ‘downtime’ of their properties that trying to generate revenue from property from leasing, co-working and ‘external hire’ arrangements could result in a land tax assessment.
The Land Tax Act 2005 (Vic) gives land tax exemptions for certain property or property uses. For general charitable use, the Act allows property in Victoria to be exempt from land tax if it is “used by a charitable institution exclusively for charitable purposes” (our emphasis).
Not “primarily” for charitable purposes, or “mostly” for charitable purposes – the words of the legislation recite a test of exclusivity.
The problem with this “all or nothing” approach is that it discourages use of spare capacity. No-one is levying income tax on charities when they invest spare money into the stock market. So why does the State of Victoria levy land tax on charities who redirect spare capacity of their properties into revenue-generating use to fund the organisation’s charitable activities?
Let’s say a school has a fantastic performing arts theatre. It cost a lot to build, so the business manager has the good sense to make it available for hire.
If the theatre is hired by another school for an event, there is no problem. The theatre is still being used for an educational purpose and the land tax exemption can still apply. Education is a charitable purpose.
When a local dance group wants to hold their annual concert in the theatre, it appears to be another good opportunity to earn some revenue from the facility’s spare capacity. The problem is that the local dance group is not a “charitable” activity and is not a charity itself.
The mere act of hiring out the facility for a non-charitable use has the potential of exposing the school to an assessment for land tax. A one-off hiring event might be long regretted if it were to result in a land tax assessment for a charity trying to do the right thing and put its spare capacity to good use.
A ‘commercial’ hire doesn’t even have to be one that makes money. If it is not a ‘charitable use’, then a literal reading of the current law puts the land tax exemption at risk.
The requirement of exclusive charitable use does not embrace the reality that modern charities are creative and entrepreneurial in generating revenue. They should not be discouraged from doing so – it helps our donation dollars go further.
It is largely a nonsense to think that charities want to use their properties for “exclusive charitable use”. A literal reading of the legislation will exclude taking advantage of things like:
These are things that should be encouraged, not penalised. It would be undesirable to see charities “locking up” their facilities or limiting their use for fear of getting a land tax assessment. That just causes communities to miss out and makes charities look selfish.
We don’t necessarily advocate for land tax exemption just because a property is owned by a charity (although that is the situation in NSW). But we do believe in allowing room for charities to spread their entrepreneurial wings without being shot down by the tax man.
Here are alternatives that we think would work:
Until our parliamentary representatives see fit to address this issue, there are some things you can do:
And when the board asks you to look at ways to earn revenue from the spare capacity in your real estate assets and building facilities, send them a copy of this article.
For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the risk of organisations assuming that if a claim of child sexual abuse is successful, Courts will award damages in line with the amounts payable under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.
In MC v Morris [2019] NSWSC 1326, the New South Wales Supreme Court found that the applicant has suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, medication-related obesity and other related health issues following historic child sexual abuse.
The Court assessed damages of more than $3.5 million dollars at common law.
In the mid 1990’s, the plaintiff performed lawn-mowing and maintenance work for his neighbours, including the defendant. At the time, the plaintiff was between 13 and 15 years old.
The defendant groomed and sexually abused the plaintiff during this period. After the plaintiff reported the abuse to the police in 2017, the defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, criminal offences resulting in his imprisonment.
Following this, the plaintiff commenced civil proceedings against the defendant for assault and battery relating to the sexual abuse. The defendant was represented at the hearing, however did not file a defence or serve any expert evidence. The plaintiff led evidence in relation to the effect of the abuse on his life, including his expulsion from school, breakdown of his subsequent marriage and inability to maintain consistent employment.
The plaintiff tendered expert evidence of psychological injury, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression requiring medication, leading to extreme weight gain.
While damages will vary depending on the individual circumstances of the case, this decision highlights a willingness by courts to recognise the significant impact of child sexual abuse on the survivor – physically, psychologically, financially and interpersonally.
With respect to the quantum, the Court noted that it:
“Reflects the reality that the defendant’s predatory pursuit of his depraved sexual interest in a boy of early teenage years has all but destroyed what might have been a contented and useful life.”
The quantum was calculated as follows:
The case serves as a reminder that organisations should not rely on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Framework to assess potential quantum of damages relating to historical child sexual abuse matters, as survivors still have the ability to pursue a common law claim.
For more information on managing child safety concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) seem to be the weapon of choice in the for purpose sector. Commonly used to formalise joint projects and other collaborations between organisations, MOUs are popular because they are perceived to be a quick, informal and simple way to sketch out the terms of a relationship. Organisations need to be aware, however, that these seemingly innocuous documents can lead to confusing situations that might require legal advice to untangle, or leave one party exposed to risk.
This article looks at the top four things not-for-profit organisations should consider when entering into MOUs.
Before considering the content of the agreement, organisations should first consider whether a MOU is appropriate for what they are trying to achieve. Although MOUs do not have a set definition in law, they are generally understood to be a non-enforceable written understanding between two or more organisations.
This expectation of non-enforceability is the key characteristic of a MOU. It allows organisations to record their understanding and expectations without the deliberation required for a formal contract. This means that a MOU can be simple and cost-effective to prepare.
However, the strengths of a MOU – non-enforceability and easy preparation – are also its weaknesses:
The nature of a MOU means that it is better suited for informal or good-will based collaborations of low value or low risk, such as:
A more formal, enforceable agreement is more appropriate for:
The key questions for organisations considering entering into a MOU is – how severe could the consequences be for our organisation if the other party does not meet their obligations and we cannot enforce this agreement? If you need to be able to enforce an agreement, it is best to use a properly drafted contract.
Even in the most informal relationships, it may be appropriate to have some terms that will be enforceable and can even survive the termination of the relationship. These need to be clearly distinguished from the rest of the MOU and may deal with matters such as confidentiality and non-disparagement.
Some organisations prefer a MOU precisely because it is non-enforceable – they don’t want the agreement to be able to “come back to bite them”. Organisations should be aware that simply describing a document as a “Memorandum of Understanding” or “Heads of Agreement” does not automatically make it legally unenforceable. It is not uncommon to see “MOUs” that are actually legally binding contracts.
The question is whether the parties intended to create a legally binding relationship. This will depend partly on the circumstances surrounding the MOU, and partly on the wording of the document itself. A clause stating “nothing in this MOU is intended to create legally binding obligations” is a great start. On the other hand, a MOU that is silent on intention but includes a large amount of detail (like specifics of the services one party will deliver, how they will be remunerated and consequences if the parties don’t meet their obligations) could in fact be a contract.
A key risk with a MOU that is a “contract in disguise” is that it will often not have been prepared with the care and deliberation that should go into an enforceable contract. It may also not have been through any requisite Board approval process.
There are essential matters MOUs should address. These help to ensure that the document is practical, comprehensive and captures matters that otherwise may be merely recorded in meeting notes and through chains of emails. A well drafted MOU will give clarity to all parties and help them to confirm that they are on the same page before they get started.
At a minimum, MOUs should address the following:
Depending on the scope of the MOU, it may also be useful to cover details like definitions, interpretation, relationship to other agreements and use of intellectual property.
Organisations should give careful consideration to whether an MOU is the appropriate way to set out the terms of a collaboration or joint project. Any MOU must be carefully prepared to ensure that it does not leave your organisation exposed.
Our For Purpose team regularly helps clients to appropriately document the terms of their relationships with project partners. If you have a query, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Recent cases and the latest statistics from the regulator demonstrate that human error continues to be a key issue in data breaches, including where these human errors open up opportunity for hacking and other types of cyber-breaches.
Those in Not-for-Profits often suffer some financial impact, but also the issue of damaged reputations.
Victorian hospitals, Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, online gaming company Zynga, online ticket company Get, PayID and food delivery company DoorDash – there has been no shortage of recent data breaches which have recently affected a wide range of organisations.
These high profile data breaches demonstrate the variety of different types of data breaches, from malicious activity to human error. They also demonstrate that data breaches can be operationally, reputationally and financially damaging.
The recent data breaches provide a key lesson for all organisations that data breaches are a very real risk for which many organisations still remain under-prepared.
Hospital data breach
In late September 2019, several hospitals in western Victoria suffered a data breach. This included Gippsland Hospital, Barwon Hospital, Geelong’s University Hospital and hospitals in Warrnambool, Colac, Warragul, Sale and Bairnsdale.
The attack was a malicious criminal attack that forced several hospitals to quarantine and disconnect a number of their systems including the internet, patient records and booking and management systems.
This meant some medical procedures had to be delayed and Premier Daniel Andrews stated that it would take weeks to secure the affected networks and clear out the virus. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest any personal information was released.
The attack comes after a warning from Victoria’s Auditor-General who stated in May that Victoria’s health databases had serious weaknesses which put patient data at risk. This aligns with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which consistently reports health service providers as the sector that suffers the most notifiable data breaches.
So, whilst the breaches were caused by malicious activity, the suggestion is the human-created environment enabled the attacks.
PayID
PayID allows account holders across all major financial institutions to make instantaneous payments using mobile phone numbers or emails. It was launched in 2018 by the New Payments Platform, an alliance of 13 banks and has been used to process 90 million transactions totalling more than $75 billion. However, since its release, PayID has been plagued with privacy concerns and data breaches. In particular, it was criticised that when a phone number is typed in, the name associated with the phone number automatically pops up (to confirm the identity). Therefore, anyone typing in a string of numbers will automatically know the name of the person holding that phone number.
In June 2019, 98,000 PayID details were obtained by hackers who were able to access the personal information of 600,000 PayID users. In August 2019, a further 92,000 PayIDs were exposed, leading to the reveal of users’ full name and mobile phone numbers. This was then used to send phishing messages to clients claiming to be from banks.
In this case, some of the user-friendly functions wanted for human interaction inadvertently led to technical vulnerabilities.
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation
On 24 September 2019, an ABC staff member was sent a document containing the full names and addresses of customers and the amounts they had transferred into their superfunds. The ABC staff member was sent her own information as well as the additional documents with the personal information of other customers.
CSC has admitted that 18 customers were affected and they are investigating urgently. It is expected that the incident was due to human error.
We again see here the factor of human error laying the groundwork for a data breach which later occurs electronically.
The significant media coverage regarding recent data breaches demonstrates the broad impact data breaches can have on organisations.
For not-for-profits, this can also impact their reputation as a trusted organisation. In 2017, the accidental release of personal information from 550,000 blood donors impacted Australian Red Cross Blood Service’s reputation as a trusted organisation. In the two weeks that followed, they received 3,700 calls and emails regarding the breach. Luckily, Red Cross’ rapid response and honesty helped preserve their reputation. They were however required to enter enforceable undertakings with the OAIC.
Data breaches for organisations can also cause significant financial loss. In 2018, Save the Children lost $1 million when a cyber-attack gained access to an employee’s email account and then used that to create fake invoices. Furthermore, we are seeing increased amounts of law suits against organisations that fail to protect the privacy of individuals. For example, Yahoo recently settled a data breach class action for $117 million.
Not-for-profits that are bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) should also be aware of the penalties under the Act, especially in light of announcements in March 2019 that the Government intends to increase penalties to $10 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained through the misuse of information or 10% of an organisation’s annual domestic turnover.
It is important that organisations are doing what they can to both prevent data breaches and also ensure that they are equipped to respond efficiently to any breaches that do occur.
We recommend that organisations prioritise the following:
Moores is currently taking bookings for privacy training sessions. Contact us below if you’d like to hear more about out engaging and entertaining privacy training sessions for staff, and our in depth sessions for boards.
Our privacy team has worked with a large number of corporates and Not-For-Profits regarding their privacy compliance including:
If you need any assistance with Privacy practices for your organization, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) has once again cautioned employers against dismissing employees by text message, deeming it rarely appropriate or considerate. Despite text messaging being a now common form of communication, the Commission, in two recent decisions, has described dismissal by text message as repugnant.
In Kurt Wallace v AFS Security 24/7 Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4292, a casual employee was awarded $12,465 in compensation after being told by text message that his services as a causal patrol guard with AFS Security were no longer required.
The employee had been employed by AFS for two years and had previously been verbally counselled regarding his work performance. Shortly after the employee raised a concern about not receiving payment for a shift he had worked, the employee was dismissed from his employment by text message.
The Commission determined the employee was a regular and systematic casual employee and therefore able to make unfair dismissal application. In response to the application, AFS argued that text messaging was the normal method of communication within the company.
Finding the employee had been unfairly dismissed, the Commission noted that:
“Notification of dismissal should not be made by text message or other electronic communication. Unless there is some genuine apprehension of physical violence or geographical impediment, the message of dismissal should be conveyed face to face. To do otherwise is unnecessarily callous”.
In forming its decision, the Commission considered that:
A similar warning was issued by the Commission in Van-Son Thai v Email Ventilation Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4116, after an employee of 12 years was terminated by text message. Here the Commission stated:
“It is not the first time I have had cause to point out that informing an employee of their dismissal by phone, text or email is an inappropriate means of conveying a decision, which has such serious ramifications for an employee. I consider it would only be in rare circumstances that a decision to dismiss an employee should not be conveyed in person”.
The Commission has made clear that it will rarely, if ever, be reasonable to terminate an employee by text message. This is the case even in small businesses or where text messaging is the common method of communication.
Even where there is a valid reason for dismissal, if an employee is dismissed other than in person, the employer is likely to be at significant risk of an employee succeeding in an unfair dismissal claim. The Commission has wide ranging powers in unfair dismissal claims including ordering reinstatement or awarding significant compensation.
If you need assistance to navigate the complex path associated with managing or dismissing an employee, please do not hesitate to contact us.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2019fwc4292.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/pdf/2019fwc4116.pdf
From 1 October 2019, employers will have greater certainty on when they can reject job applications from people with criminal records. The introduction of the Australian Human Rights Commission Regulations 2019 (Regulations) clarifies that it is lawful for employers to discriminate on the basis of a ‘relevant criminal record’. The Regulations also introduce a more contemporary definition of disability.
The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (AHRC Act) enables the Commission to inquire into, and attempt to settle by conciliation, complaints of discrimination in employment on specified grounds. Subsection 3(1)(b) of the AHRC Act provides that the Attorney-General may declare, by regulation, additional grounds which constitute discrimination for the purposes of the Commission’s equal employment opportunity powers. There are ten additional grounds declared in the Regulations.
The Commission’s powers with respect to equal opportunity in employment differ to existing mechanisms to resolve workplace discrimination, such as complaints to the Commission under federal anti‑discrimination legislation. The powers have been described by some as a “toothless tiger” because the complainant has no right pursue their claim in the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court, and there are no enforceable remedies for these complaints. If conciliation is unsuccessful and the Commission finds unlawful discrimination, the Commission can simply report the matter to the Attorney-General and make non-enforceable recommendations.
Further, the Commission’s equal opportunity in employment function provides broader coverage of protections for workplace discrimination than that under Commonwealth discrimination laws. For example, volunteers are not explicitly covered in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 or the Age Discrimination Act 2004 but are covered under the Commission’s equal opportunity in employment functions.
Irrelevant Criminal Record
The Regulations amend the ground of ‘criminal record’ to irrelevant criminal record. This amendment was introduced in response to concerns raised by the Commission’s report in BE v Suncorp Group Ltd [2018] AusHRC121, which involved a case where an employer discriminated by withdrawing a job offer to a man who had failed to disclose child pornography convictions, arguing that the criminal record demonstrated he was not of sufficient character and integrity to be trusted at work.
The effect of the amended ground is to clarify that, while employers can discriminate on the basis of a ‘relevant criminal record’, they will not be able to discriminate if the conviction is ‘irrelevant’ to the role for which the person is applying. By ensuring that employers don’t discriminate on the basis of an irrelevant criminal record, the Regulations strike a better balance between enabling people with criminal records to find employment, whilst protecting an employer’s right to refuse employment when a person’s criminal record makes them unsuitable for the position they’ve applied for.
Disability
The Regulations also introduce a single ground of disability, which includes all disabilities and does not distinguish between different disabilities, like the old Regulations did. As well as aligning the definition with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, it provides welcome clarity to employers and employees and limits the risk of uncertainty around whether a person’s disability fits within the protected ground.
Whilst the Regulations provide welcome clarity for employers and employees about the scope of the Commission’s powers to help resolve workplace discrimination complaints on the grounds of disability and irrelevant criminal records, it can also be a sensitive terrain that employers have to navigate.
If you are facing any challenges around potential workplace decisions involving people with disability or a person with a criminal record, we can help you to navigate this challenging landscape. Please do not hesitate to contact us.
Moores recently hosted a seminar alongside staff of the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to discuss the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) approvals process and debunk some of mystery around how the Commission assesses applications.
An EBA is a registered agreement which sets out the terms and conditions of employment between a group of employees and one or more employers. Once approved by the Commission, EBAs have the effect of prevailing over Modern Awards that may otherwise cover employees unless the Modern Award is incorporated into the EBA.
Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act), the Commission can only approve an EBA if it is satisfied that the Agreement:
The Act sets out specific time frames which organisations must comply with when negotiating and drafting an EBA. The consequences of non-compliance with the Act can result in significant delays in the process and even the EBA being rejected by the Commission.
If you want to implement an EBA within your organisation and don’t know where to start, Moores can guide you through the process. For more information on enterprise bargaining, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Currently the Fair Work Commission is trialling a new system which will enable organisations lodging an EBA to complete and submit all necessary documents on-line by using a smart form system. The system will assist parties to lodge compliant applications by:
Organisations can take part in the trial during October and November ahead of an expected roll out of the system in late 2019. Further information can be obtained by contacting the Fair Work Commission.
A recent Supreme Court Decision highlights the risk to schools of using enrolment documents which don’t provide sufficient protection, after finding a school was unable to recover unpaid tuition fees from parents.
It’s an issue we see frequently: simply rolling out new terms and conditions does not mean all parents are bound. Many schools are – or have just advised of – fee increases. Do these notifications actually form part of the binding enrolment agreement?
In the case of Whitworth v Christian Brothers College Adelaide,[1] the Supreme Court found that the College was unable to recover unpaid fees of close to $15,000. The student’s mother had entered into an enrolment contract with the College in 2009. In 2017 and 2018 updated School Fee Agreement Forms were sent to the mother along with a request to pay the applicable fees. The mother did not sign the forms or pay the applicable fees.
In finding that the College was unable to recover the unpaid fees, the Court found that the enrolment documents were deficient for the following reasons:
Having regard to the specific facts of the case, the Court held that:
Following this Decision, we recommend that schools review their enrolment documents to ensure they are up to date and offer adequate protection.
A few key points:
If you would like to discuss any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact us.
[1] [2019] it’s SASC 154
“First base is when you meet someone, second base is when you send a nude image and third base is when you kiss them.”
This is how teenagers are viewing the progression of relationships according to eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. In an eye-opening new report released in September 2019 (the Report), the eSafety Commissioner revealed that since it started accepting reports around 18 months ago, it has received 1,400 reports of image based abuse. In particular, sharing sexual images is a normalised aspect of dating for children and young people.
The new report demonstrates the importance of considering technology when creating a child safe culture. It is a strong message to schools and other organisations that work with children that they must cover all their bases when ensuring the safety of children, including the electronic bases.
The Report focused on the attitudes and motivations of individuals who engage in image-based abuse. It noted that there were generally five types of image based abuse (IBA):
Relevantly for organisations that work with children, sharing images where the victim is identifiable is particularly prevalent amongst young people. This is often done by males as a form of social status. The sexualised image is often shared with the perpetrator consensually but then distributed further without consent.
Furthermore, organisations that work with children should also be aware of the fourth typology relating to child exploitation. Like all forms of child abuse, this is typically done as an opportunistic form of asserting power and dominance. Organisations will need to ensure they have proper procedures in place to prevent this type of abuse.
Unfortunately, the Report also found that IBA is occurring at increased rates. It was found that 1 in 10 Australians have committed IBA and sadly, due to lack of education and poor understanding of the impact of their actions, perpetrators often show little remorse.
IBA is defined by the eSafety Commissioner as when intimate or sexual photos or videos are shared online without consent. It is also commonly called ‘revenge porn’, although this can be misleading as revenge is not always the motive. IBA should also not be confused with sexting which refers to the sharing of intimate or sexual images, photos or videos and is often done consensually.
The rates of IBA are rising rapidly, with 21% of people who have experienced IBA stating that it occurred in the last year. 15% of all individuals who have experienced IBA are aged 15 – 17. The reason rates are higher amongst young people is considered due increased rates of sharing of initiate images and videos.
Surprisingly, amongst young people, the most common situation of IBA is where a friend shares an intimate image (29%). This is followed by ex-partner at 13%. Again, this demonstrates that intimate image sharing amongst young people is often due to social factors.
It can be tempting for organisations that work with children to think that IBA and sexting have nothing to do with the organisation as it occurs in the children’s own time. However, we know that an organisation’s duty of care is broad and we are seeing technology stretch its application.
For example, in August 2019 a video was posted on Snapchat of a vicious brawl at Berwick Secondary College, including a teacher being attacked. The video was widely circulated. This follows a discovery in April 2019 of Instagram and Snapchat accounts that specifically hosted videos of students fighting and being bullied.
From a sexting and IBA perspective, apps such as Snapchat are also generally involved. For young girls aged 15 – 17 who have experienced IBA, 47% of these incidents occur over Snapchat. The impact of these incidents for individuals and organisations is well documented in the SBS show “The Hunting” which follows the story of several young people during incidents intimate images shared without consent.
You can read more about how organisation’s duty of care and child safety considerations in a digital world in our previous article.
Organisations that work with children need to ensure that they are prepared to address child safety concerns in a digital context quickly and effectively. Unfortunately, this is often an area that is not prioritised.
We recommend that organisations undertake the following steps:
For more information regarding the eSafety report or for assistance with reviewing your existing policies and procedures, please do not hesitate to contact us.