Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Harassment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates timelines and confidentiality in workplace‑harassment policy; asks staff for clarifying edits
Summary
Members told staff the current harassment‑policy timelines (24‑hour intake and 72‑hour panel appointment) are too tight for interim periods and weekends and asked staff to draft clarifying language on withdrawn complaints, informal logs of concerns and alternative dispute resolution. The committee did not vote on final edits but asked Legislative
The committee reviewed the Legislative Assembly’s workplace‑harassment policy and related forms and asked Legislative Council staff to return with clarifications and likely edits.
Emily Thompson summarized the policy elements: the intake checklist must be completed within 24 hours of receiving a complaint; if not summarily dismissed, the four leaders appoint members to a five‑person review panel that must hold its first meeting within 72 hours; investigations (panel or independent investigator) have a 25‑day window with a maximum of 75 calendar days including extensions; records are exempt while investigations are open but become public after the 75‑day period unless they were never investigated.
Committee members — led by Senator Hogan — said the 24‑hour and 72‑hour timelines are unrealistically tight, particularly when complaints arrive on weekends or during breaks. Members asked whether the policy could accommodate an informal log of concerns that remains exempt until there is sufficient evidence to trigger a formal investigation and whether alternative dispute resolution (mediation) could be explicitly authorized before empaneling a review panel. Thompson said current statutes provide some confidentiality for communications between a member and staff and that the policy could be revised to clarify treatment of withdrawn complaints and to incorporate flexible timeline language (for example, allowing a mutually agreed timeline for intake and panel appointment when appropriate).
The committee asked staff to draft proposed changes to: lengthen intake and appointment timelines (with exceptions for imminent threats), clarify confidentiality for withdrawn or informal reports, and include explicit reference to pre‑complaint mediation or alternative dispute resolution options. No formal vote was taken on policy text at the meeting.
Next steps: Thompson will bring back draft language addressing the committee’s timing and confidentiality concerns and options to permit mediation and informal logs of concerns.
