Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein said that while his client, Julia Szlakowski, has “no concern” over her full complaint being released, AMP never provided her with a report on its investigation into Mr Pahari.
“AMP in its public statement today say they want to ensure fair treatment for my client in seeking her consent to publicly release documents relating to her sexual harassment complaint,” Mr Bornstein said.
“The fact remains however that our client has never been provided with a copy of the full investigation report into her complaint, and without this it makes it very difficult for her to provide meaningful consent to AMP’s request today.”
Maurice Blackburn has also requested that AMP release the terms of reference provided to Andrew Burns QC, who undertook the investigation, as well as all documents relating to the disciplinary action taken against Mr Pahari and a copy of any draft investigation report.
“Once Ms Szlakowski has been provided with these additional documents, she will be able to consider further AMP’s request for consent to the public release of the full investigation report,” Mr Bornstein said.
It’s another blow to the wealth giant, which has already copped heavy criticism for its handling of the matter from both inside and outside the financial services. Ms Szlakowski had previously called into question AMP’s claim that Mr Pahari’s conduct constituted a “lower level breach” and said that she had never received an apology from him, contrary to the company’s statement in July.
“Now AMP has two choices: it can continue to downplay a credible sexual harassment complaint, which impugns all survivors, or take action to bring about lasting and meaningful change,” Ms Szlakowski said.
“If anyone has any doubt about the seriousness of what happened, I would welcome the company releasing the full text of my complaint and the findings of the investigation.”
Mr Bornstein said that AMP had glazed over the seriousness of the matter by treating each incident as a discrete matter, saying he was “puzzled about the treatment of a serious case of sexual harassment in this manner”.
“By isolating parts of a detailed complaint in this way, it can be robbed of its significance,” Mr Bornstein said.
“Mr Pahari asked Ms Szlakowski to tell him the age of the oldest man she had dated in circumstances, which included: a) he was much older than her, b) he was her boss, c) his conduct was unwanted sexual behaviour and d) it was part of a series of events of unwanted sexual behaviour.”
