2 hours ago
1
Each week, Dr Kirstin Ferguson tackles questions about workplace, career and leadership in her advice column Got a Minute? This week: an inappropriate remark, unreasonable working hours and a question about AI and privacy.
I’m the only woman in our senior management team. During a meeting about a vacant role at work, one of the men asked who had been the successful candidate. Another man said, “We chose the one with the large chest,” which drew laughter around the table. I said the comment was inappropriate and that I would be lodging a complaint. Since then, I’ve felt excluded from conversations and emails. Our male HR manager was present at the meeting and later told me in passing that he had a word to the individual and advised him not to make comments like that again, which, I feel, was not an adequate response. I am still appalled. Should I escalate this, at the risk of further exclusion by the team?
These incidents make me so angry. There is not a single woman I know, myself included, who has not been put in the invidious position you now find yourself in. I don’t need to tell you how inappropriate the comment was and that you were right, and frankly courageous, to speak up.
Most concerning now is the reaction since. Being excluded from communications after raising a complaint can cross into retaliation, which organisations should take very seriously. Since December 2022, employers have a duty to actively prevent harassment and sexist conduct. These new laws are designed for situations like you describe – when unwelcome sexual comments happen in front of others who say and do nothing.
Before escalating formally, it may help to document what has happened since the meeting, like any missed communications, changes in behaviour or any exclusion from decisions you would normally be part of. Having clear examples keeps the conversation focused on facts rather than feelings.
You could then request a proper conversation with HR and ask specifically what action was taken after what happened, and how the organisation intends to prevent similar behaviour in the future. I would also ask what plans the company has made to ensure active bystander training is in place given the changes to the law around this. All power to you; this kind of conduct simply needs to end.
My contract says I’m paid for 37.5 hours a week, but I’m expected to work 40 hours as standard. The company says the extra time is “reasonable additional hours” under the contract clause. Occasionally, I work up to 50 hours with no overtime, while some more senior colleagues are paid overtime for similar hours. This has been raised with management but nothing has changed. Is this reasonable or wage theft?
The phrase “reasonable additional hours” appears in many employment contracts, but it doesn’t give employers unlimited access to unpaid labour. Whether extra hours are reasonable depends on several factors: the nature of the role, your salary, the pattern of overtime and whether those extra hours are occasional or effectively part of the standard working week.
If you are routinely expected to work 40 hours while being paid for 37.5, that begins to look less like occasional overtime and more like a structural expectation.
A useful first step is to check the award, enterprise agreement or classification that covers your role. These documents often set rules about ordinary hours and overtime entitlements.
If the issue can’t be resolved internally, the Fair Work Ombudsman can provide guidance and investigate potential underpayment.
Before escalating externally, keep clear records of the hours you work and any communication with management about the expectations. That evidence becomes important if the matter needs to be examined more formally.
My manager sends detailed notes after our one-on-one meetings and I suspect she is using an AI note-taking tool. She has also used it during meetings with external parties without telling participants. Is that considered recording the meeting, and could it be illegal?
Your instinct is sensible – transparency matters when technology is used in meetings. Many AI note-taking tools work by recording the audio of a meeting and then producing a transcript or summary. In practical terms that usually means the conversation is being recorded, even if the goal is simply to generate notes.
Recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties can raise legal issues under surveillance and listening-device laws. The safest practice is to clearly inform participants if a meeting is being recorded or transcribed.
Before assuming the worst, it may be worth asking your manager directly how the tool works and whether participants are being notified. Sometimes people adopt new technology without fully considering the privacy implications, and you could frame your comment as just wanting to make sure she isn’t caught out.
To submit a question about work, careers or leadership, visit kirstinferguson.com/ask. You will not be asked to provide your name or any identifying information. Letters may be edited.
