Domestic Violence Responsibility Widens !

During the Coronavirus lockdown it was a hallmark of government policy that where possible business should continue to function with employees working from home. The age of the computer made this feasible in many industries, but now a finding in the New South Wales Supreme Court has raised the responsibility for family violence while employees are working from home as a direct charge on the employer.

This case arose where a woman and her de facto partner lived together with the woman's teenage son and a recent baby.   They both worked for the same employer but competed for clients and it appears that the de facto partner was suffering paranoid delusions and believed his partner was trying to steal his clients and intended to ruin him.   He attacked her with a hammer, causing her death.

An application for worker's compensation was made on behalf of the children but this was denied by the nominal insurer. The Worker's Compensation Commission then found in the children's favour but this was appealed.  In March this year the commission decided to pay the children $450,000.

The judgement says an employer might not always be responsible for domestic violence between couples who work from home but in this case there was a " palpable  and direct connection between the de facto's delusions and the harm suffered by her ".

Women's Safety NSW commented that many women had been forced to work from home with their abusers since the pandemic, without ever being asked if it was safe.   This decision would bring the issue of family violence onto business radars.  It might result in time off to attend court or put them in contact with support services.

For the business community this opens new ground.  That age old argument that what hapens behind closed doors is a private matter has just emerged as a business responsibility.  There was the expectation that when this coronavirus eventually recedes it might leave behind it in the business world a new era where the office became redundant and a greater number of employees worked permanently from home.

It also raises the spectre of very intrusive questions being asked in employment interviews.  Would an employer be justified in rejecting an employment applicant if evidence surfaced that the police had been called to that persons home in response to a domestic violence complaint ?

Unfortunately, many people have very volatile relationships, not all of which constitute domestic violence.  A loud argument can result in neighbours calling the police.  This is a court decision which will have far reaching consequences  !