Background: Ms Shepherd was a 23

year old woman employed by Mr Tuck,

who owned and managed a marine
survey business. After two months, Ms
Shepherd's employment was terminated

on the basis, she alleged, that she

would not engage in a personal
relationship with him.
She based her complaint on a series of
incidents alleged to be sexual harassment.
These included: statements of a sexual
nature to and about her: blonde jokes
(apparently inferring that she was not
intelligent), taking a photograph of another
woman's legs and suggesting it be stuck on
Ms Shepherd's office desk, gifts and a
suggestion of shared accommodation while
travelling in order to minimise costs.
Mr Tuck admitted he was attracted to Ms
Shepherd, but said it was she who made
advances to him and that she proposed a
relationship. He countered the allegations with
other claims. These included Ms Shepherd
introducing herself by kissing him on the neck,
not voicing any objection to shared
accommodation, referring to herself as a slut,
and dressing scantily in his presence.
Mr Tuck argued that Ms Shepherd's employment
was terminated because of her inappropriate
conduct while representing the company, her lack of
capacity to do the tasks, and inadequate workplace
performance. Examples included giving out
company business cards to males in whom she was
interested, making a serious error in a ship's manual
and instead of correcting it as asked, going to have
a drink with the ship's cook, refusing to do field
work, putting personal matters before business
appointments, and driving the company car after
drinking alcohol. On the issue of jokes, Mr Tuck said
Ms Shepherd joined in the general joke-telling and
humour of the office.
Outcome: Member Pagani found that neither party was deliberately untruthful , and agreed in
general on the facts. She found the main divergence was that Mr Tuck indicated he never
intended offence, and Ms Shepherd said she was offended.

In terms of Mr Tuck's desire to have a relationship with Ms Shepherd, it was found that no
reasonable person in her circumstances would have been offended by the proposal, had it been
made by the first respondent as alleged.

In summing up, the Member said Ms Shepherd and Mr Tuck had shared a very casual, and
personal, working relationship. The working environment was rough and tumble , but the
complainant was an equal participant in it . The Member found that Ms Shepherd failed to
prove her case to the required standard.

Shepherd v Tuck and Tuki Marine Surveys Pty Ltd [2002] QADT 10 (19 April 2002).