Love in the workplace

Contents

1. Love @ work
2. Romance everywhere
3. Sexual harassment
4. Sex and politicians
5. Hibbins affair
6. Conclusions
7. References

------------------------

Love is blind ....

1. Love @ work

Lindsay hit send. “I think I love you....” The email travelled over to Roxanne, sitting opposite him in the office. There was a slight ding sound, followed by a click. Her response was similarly short, and sweet: "I love you too..." They looked up from their screens and smiled, evidencing deep affection. The electronic communication was the result of a long, slow, year of evolving closeness, after almost a decade of working for the same organisation. Their relationship was now teetering on the edge of physical intimacy and commitment. They were both anxious and excited. Over the following days the fall came to pass. It was a period of emotional intensity. Their love went on to flower, set in a self-imposed protective bubble which, at its core, separated them from the world outside. Nothing else mattered. That world involved present and previous partners, extended family, friends and, to a lesser degree, work colleagues. The workplace provided an enabling refuge from the world outside for a romance to blossom. Five years later they were a couple, married, with two beautiful children. Life was good, though the journey had not been without hiccups and trauma, as it is with any period of change.....

--------------------

Caveat: This is not an article about sexual harassment, sexual violence, personal power dynamics inside and outside of the workplace, sexual hubris, sexploitation, hook-ups, Tinder, or gender discrimination. It is an article about intimate relationships between consenting adults, both within the workplace and outside of it, giving rise to long-term commitment should circumstances permit. It is also about respect for individual privacy in a world becoming increasingly invasive and judgemental. Finally, it is about falling in love.

-------------------------

2. Romance everywhere

An April 2024 survey of 2,000 Americans commissioned by Forbes magazine - which had pursued the subject of workplace romances since 2019 - revealed that 60% of workers had engaged at one time in an affair with a workplace colleague, and 43% of those romances had resulted in marriage, or the equivalent (Elsesser 2019 & 2023, Main 2024). 40% of those surveyed were partnered at the time of the workplace romance. Other media outlets, such as the British BBC, likewise reported on "the inevitability of office romance" (Lufkin 2022). But isn't this sort of thing now frowned upon by businesses, vilified in the media, and sometimes banned?

The development of workplace friendships and romances have long been commonplace, and the reasons are obvious (Main 2024, Noori 2024, Workers Right 2023). Mature adults have two places in which to meet new partners and fall in love - inside of work and outside of work. Consenting adults can at times be attracted to another person, and that attraction can evolve into the love seen in the example outlined above, or it can be short-term for all manner of reasons. It may even be unrequited. This is natural and can be said to take place on two levels:

(1) The first is the pure, individual level, involving just two people in a totally private affair. Falling in love is an intangible thing which often has no simple explanation, is not usually planned or forced, and can be uncontrollable in relation to how it evolves.

(2) The second is within the context of the world in which the two individuals live. This is not private, but public, and varies to the degree in which the parties involved wish to reveal their relationship, or have control over the reveal. Often they do not. Ideally the relationship is able to evolve without any undue external influences, though in reality this is usually impossible.

Of course the development of intimate relationships can impact upon existing partners, family, friends, and non-work colleagues, whilst social aspects can have an impact, such as social norms, religious beliefs, age, gender, politics, public opinion and increasingly workplace policies. Any or all of these elements can be supportive, antagonistic, or agnostic. Historically the vast majority of workplace relationships remained private, or were selectively shared with other intimate third parties such as affected partners and close friends. In recent years it has become common, or indeed mandatory, for workplace romances to be shared with organisational HR staff.

Public figures such as politicians, actors, musicians, senior bureaucrats, business leaders and other so-called 'influencers' can have their affairs revealed without recourse to respect for privacy. The rationale which proclaims all public figures fair game to media intrusion is objectionable, especially where there is no obvious conflict of interest involved or other extenuating circumstance demanding public exposure of private lives. 

Politicians are especially vulnerable to public judgement which asserts that engagement in a workplace romance somehow makes them unfit for office. No reason for such a blanket assertion is given. Such a relationship is almost invariably sighted by third parties as a gross abuse of power - which it usually is not - and morally reprehensible - which is a purely subjective and personal assessment. The resultant vilification denies the often simple reality of an affair involving two consenting adults falling in love, as is the usual case outside of the realm of politics or public personality. This vilification is especially intense if one or both of the parties is married, with children. In most instances both inside and outside of the workplace, romance and falling in love not subject to public criticism and allowed to proceed in private.

Why, then, are politicians and other public figures singled out?

Apart from the third-party reasons mentioned above, it appears to take no account of the actual status of the relationship, and assumes it involves some sort of emotional or physical abuse. Apparently  it also remains a public sin to commit adultery (i.e., to have sex with somebody outside of marriage), and that is usually at the core of media and societal criticism, though rarely openly stated. Due to public reactions, and in increasing instances workplace policies, many individuals end up quitting their jobs, or are sacked, whilst others ignore the vilification and pursue the relationship to one of its inevitable outcomes, namely, long-term commitment or abandonment due to the public vilification or natural cessation.

The present writer is astounded by the hypocrisy of such criticism and vilification of what is a private affair. There are any number of Hollywood and foreign films which highlight instances of the development of loving relationships in unfamiliar places, such as at work, on holiday, or away from the home where, over time, loneliness can overwhelm and long-term relationships fade. Such romances often result in unrequited love, as seen in classic films such as Casablanca (1942), Pretty Woman (1990), In the Mood for Love (2000), Love Actually (2003) and Lost in Translation (2003). However, sympathy for the male/female politician, or person with a perceived power to control, is rarely extended beyond the screen. This is despite the fact that the best of those film reveal the humanity of those involved and deep-seated emotions attached to the act of falling in love, in spite of the perception that personal power dynamics are always at play. They are not. In fact, abusive personal power inequities usually give rise to relationship failure.

The two extremes here - public vilification as against respect for privacy - reveal the complex private and public circumstances which are usually associated with workplace romances, and any romance for that matter involving mature adults. The outcome of the clash between the private and the public can be horrendous, resulting in relationship breakdowns, divorce, sacking, loss of friendships, legal actions, “cancelling”, public vilification and even the tragic ending of lives through murder or suicide. All of this can arise because of the natural, and inevitable, development of a loving relationship between two individuals, and one in which either party, or both, may feel totally out of control in their experience of a developing consensual connection. For example, in the nexus where one love is emerging in the workplace, and another in a long-term relationship outside of that is dying or dead, confusion may reign and the plea of "I love you both" resolves nothing. This is almost inevitable when a couple actually falls in love and one or both are already in a relationship. The outcome usually involves pain, heartbreak, and the absence of a win:win. Falling in love may be wonderful, but it is never simple. Heartbreak is real as a relationship falls apart, as is heartache as a new one forms.

The present writer views the more public and tragic elements of such romances as deplorable, believing that any romance should be allowed to play out and resolve itself in private. Why? For many reasons, but first and foremost because the public exposure of often evolving personal emotions and feelings serves no good to any of the parties involved, assuming there are no extenuating circumstances in which partial or public disclosure is warranted, such as abuse or corrupt conduct. There is usually no need for the public to know if it is simply a matter between two consenting adults. That is not to say that the actual parties involved or directly impacted, such as partners, should not know that truth, but, rather, that it should not go beyond those parties when it is a matter of love and development of a romantic relationship between consenting adults. 

It is almost invariable that secrecy surrounds the development of a romantic relationship, as two parties slowly come to terms not only with the reality of the relationship, but also with the possible external implications. Issues of religious beliefs, such as the Catholic commandment Though shall not commit adultery, can hold sway in certain communities. Within some Islamic sects, for example, the following punitive actions can apply to adultery arising out of a developing romance:

Brutal punishments are given to men and women who get involved in the sinful act of zina. According to Islamic laws, for premarital sex, the chastisement is 100 lashes, while for adultery the adulterers are punished by stoning to death which is also known as Rajm or severe flogging. (Advocate KHOJ 2024)

Public media and commentators as a result can reflect these religious beliefs and the punitive nature of reactions to such relationships. But that determination is again up to the individuals concerned, and not to external parties. There should be no law banning falling in love, and there is no such law, as far as the writer is aware. Unfortunately, whilst there no be such laws in place, increasingly over the last decade we have seen such restrictions becoming more common, on many fronts - legal, moral, social and in the workplace. As a result, in many instance love in the workplace is now actually banned.

Privacy is necessary in the evolution of romantic relationships and relationship breakdowns, as the eventual outcome or resolution is usually unknown. This is obviously necessary whether it is just two people involved, or if there is a third or fourth - such as partners - and the new relationship involves betrayal, "the sin of adultery", or zina, and the breakdown of what was once thought to be a long-term, loving relationship. Whatever the dynamics, privacy is warranted. And it is in the area of breach of privacy that we can see many instances where actions have been taken in recent years, both at the workplace level and in the media, to disregard that privacy. 

For example, when an organization's HR department asks a couple to report a private relationship - burgeoning or stabilized - that is by its very nature an invasion of privacy. If the HR department then releases information on that to the public, including managers and supervisors and fellow workers, this is obviously also a breach of privacy. Of course, this is never admitted, and such actions are now couched in terms of organisational risk management and all that that entails. Where such information is made public, references to falling in love are invariably missing, and they are also increasingly couched in terms of 'possible' or 'likely' sexual harassment, sexual hubris or sexploitation. The media's veracious appetite for news also results in their demands that the private details of a private relationship be revealed, with the across-the-board fallacious argument that the public has a right to know commonplace. In the vast majority of cases, they do not, and the media never actually explains why such a right should exist in these instances. Falling in love is not de rigueur sexual harassment, as is often portrayed.

----------------------

3. Sexual harassment bogie

Office romances exist in a grey area between professional boundaries and personal freedom .... Love may be a powerful force, but in the office, it's one that needs to be managed with care. (FaidiHR 2024)

What if an organization has a policy banning intimate, romantic, loving relationships between consenting adults in the workplace? Administratively and bureaucratically such policies may seem reasonable in the context of corporate risk management, and presented as such. However, legally and morally they are problematic, personally objectionable and morally abhorrent. Is it then right and just that organisations sack one or both of the individuals involved in a workplace romance, solely because of the workplace romance and no other reason? The present writer says no. Yet, just such action is becoming more common each day.

One of the reasons is undoubtedly, though not easily recognised, the emphasis in recent years on gender and identity in connection with the LGBTQI+ issue, as against the importance of relationships, whether they be traditional or diverse. In seeking to deal with perceived or real discrimination in that area, a plethora of policies have been put in place which give rise to greater public intrusion into matters which were traditionally considered private. Workers, for example, have in some instances been forced to adopt pronouns which can reveal aspects of their sexual identity. Is this an invasion of privacy? Yes, it can be viewed as such, especially where it brings that into the workplace. Herein we also have a discrepancy between efforts to remove discrimination in regards to gender and sexuality, whilst at the same time forcing people to publically discriminate - in a supposedly positive manner - based on those factors. Of course there is a need to remove negative discrimination in the workplace, of any form. But efforts in that regard need to always considers elements of respect for privacy on the part of the individual. This is a balancing act which, in recent years, could be said to have not swayed one way or the other, with the issue of privacy becoming only a second-tier consideration.

Another, though more significant factor, was the arrival in 2017 of the #MeToo movement, which rightly exposed sexual harassment and sexual violence in all levels of society, including the workplace. Unfortunately there has been an unwarranted corresponding conflation of workplace romance with the issue of workplace sexual harassment. Of course it is easy to superficially connect the two, but that does not therefore mean that the two are actually connected by default. In the vast majority of instances they are not, and such may be revealed in the numerous surveys that have been carried out in recent years around both subjects. 

Consenting adults have a right to participate in workplace romances, a large percentage of which come to nought due to lack of engagement or sustainability by one or both of the parties, for whatever reason. In such cases the episode can be innocent and loving, or it can extend into the realm of sexual harassment. For this reason, and as discussed herein, organisations need to manage workplace romances to some degree, though not as far as to interfere in them directly such that it becomes a clear invasion of privacy, or assume there is some sort of sexual harassment involved.

Policies need to be in place to ameliorate if possible, and respond if necessary, to any accusations of sexual harassment. Measures need to be proactive and reactive. Rumours, speculations and accusations remain just that until evidence for or against is collected, evaluated and acted upon. Unfortunately the media and public has a tendency to "cancel" or assume guilt at the outset of such accusations, much to the detriment of all those parties involved. Once again, respect for privacy is core in dealing with all such matters at the outset, alongside seeking and revealing the truth where sexual harassment is involved. Whilst the vast majority (circa 90%) of sexual harassment is by males towards females, variants can also occur, both in regards to females towards males, and where issue of gender diversity are involved.

When do organisations, individuals and the media step over the line into invasion of privacy in such matters? Well, it is apparent that that line has moved substantially in recent years to the stage where office romances are subsumed under the umbrella of sexual harassment and often treated as such at the outset, with little or no regard to the privacy issue. You may think this is not true, but some of the evidence presented herein indicates otherwise.

Can the development of a workplace romance be something other than sexual harassment, or are the two invariably linked?

The present writer would suggest that they are distinct and separate. Yet, it appears that in attempting to deal with sexual harassment initiatives arising out of the #MeToo movement, gender issues, and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives, punitive measures have been put into place which impact directly on workplace romances between consenting adults. This was never meant to happen. As a 2019 academic research study noted:

The purpose of this paper is to review the research on hierarchical consensual workplace romances and sexual harassment examining the underlying mechanisms of power relations. It concludes with a call to action for organizational leaders to adopt fair consensual workplace romance policies alongside strong sexual harassment policies. (Mainiero 2019)

The reference to 'fair' indicates that there has developed a trend towards the implementation of workplace romance policies that are unfair and discriminatory for no valid reason. If, for example, two people fall in love, it is unfair to subject them to a policy which denies or bans this reality based on the wrong assumption that it involves some form of sexual harassment or hierarchical abuse of power by one or both of the parties. Hierarchical consensual workplace romances occur, are normal, and should be excluded from any form of punitive action.

In order to distinguish between workplace romances and sexual harassment, organisations and HR managers have been provided with policy such as mandatory reporting and non-mandatory procedures including "love contracts" or "cupid contracts" which clearly identify the reality of the situation, ensure that the organisation cannot be held responsible for negative outcomes if the romance goes sour or issues of sexual harassment arise, and take into account privacy issues prior to the implementation of any punitive or public actions. Such contracts and agreements, whilst also seen as an unwarranted invasion of privacy, can acknowledge the following:

• The workplace romance is consensual, voluntary, welcome and unrelated to their professional relationship at work; and
• Each employee is free to end the romance at any time without coercion, prejudice or any job-related consequences.

From this we are then able to see that the organisation distinguishes clearly between workplace romances - either hierarchical or non-hierarchical - and instances of sexual harassment. Such harassment can commonly take one of three forms, namely:

(1) sexual hubris, which involves the treatment of workplace subordinates by managers, supervisors or others in actual or perceived positions of power; 

(2) sexploitation, which is exploitation which involves subordinates or others seeking advancement or positional change in the workplace through romantic or sexual attachment and manipulation; or

(3) harassment of a purely sexual nature, which does not involve any element of hierarchical exploitation or sexploitation, but is primarily of a physical nature, driven by unrestrained libido. This is often an intrinsic, though secondary element of #1 and #2.

The type of policies put in place, or considered, to ameliorate sexual harassment and, as an often unfortunate corollary, deal with workplace romances, can include:

1. Strict non-fraternisation, no-dating, no personal romances policy. These are legally problematic and, this writer would suggest, morally objectionable, extending unreasonably into breaches of privacy. One expert on this matter noted the following in regards to such extreme policies:

Firstly, there would be significant doubts that such a policy would be upheld, at least in the Australian context, as it would rarely be within the concept of a reasonable and lawful direction. It could breach privacy laws and could itself be discriminatory (for example if the policy in practice favoured married couples against singles). Moreover, such a policy could have negative effects on the workforce, encouraging employees to be dishonest about their relationships, affecting morale generally, and causing employees who do develop relationships with a co-worker to simply leave the employer (Zhang 2023).

One HR / management website spoke of using the term relationship prohibition as against dating ban to mask the true intent of such a policy, though the present writer is unclear regarding the precise difference and would suggest they refer to the same thing. Once again, the use of terms such as love or dating are not usually used by organisations as they suggest emotions are involved and it is preferred that the policies are stripped of any such references in an effort to appear legally detached from the reality of the situation.

2. Supervisors prohibited from dating any employees. Still problematic and subject to the legal concerns listed above. Appears to assume that all such relationships are examples of sexual harassment.

3. Supervisors prohibited from dating direct subordinate employees. Same as #2, though the Australian Fair Work Commission, in a specific unfair dismissal case, determined that the relationship between the manager / supervisor and a subordinate could give rise to a real or perceived conflict of interest and, as it was not disclosed to HR according to company policy, the dismissal case was upheld. Similarly, in the US supervisor and subordinate non-fraternisation policies have been upheld by the courts.

4. Love contracts. Same as #2. Can also breach privacy laws.

5. One chance to ask a person out on a date, and no more. Google and Facebook policy which attempts to stop a workplace romance, or attempt at romance, evolving into sexual harassment, without actually banning workplace romance.

The process of workplace romance which was, in the not too distant past, considered private and largely played out with little or no impact upon the workplace, is now burdened with bureaucracy and transformed through the lens of HR management from loving to abusive, private to public, of no organisational concern to legally problematic and demanding of risk management. But there is no need to go down this extreme path when it comes to love in the workplace, and most especially so, it can be argued, in regards to politicians and public figures.

----------------------

4. Sex and politicians

Q: Are politicians banned from falling in love like any other member of the community?

Ans.: Yes, in some instances.

Q: Are politicians exempt from accusations of sexual harassment and other forms of harassment in the workplace?

Ans.: No, and rightly so.

There are numerous historic examples of where privacy and what is made public come into conflict when we look at politicians and the subject of workplace romance. As public figures they are in the firing line for reporting on affairs of the heart and media / public outrage and indignation. In addition, due to the perceived positions of power and influence that they hold, workplace romances can be confused with, and associated with, corrupt activity which involves the use of that power or influence. A recent Australian case in point involved the workplace romance between New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian and State Member for Wagga Wagga Daryl Macguire, with the former involved in breaches of public trust and corrupt conduct, and the latter in corrupt conduct according to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). As Berejiklian stated during testimony before ICAC:

Under the state’s ministerial code of conduct, Berejiklian may have had an obligation to disclose to colleagues that she was, in a phrase used by an ICAC barrister, in a “close personal relationship” with Maguire. And had she deliberately ignored prima facie evidence that Maguire was using his job, and connection to her, for personal gain? Berejiklian had hoped that Maguire would get out of politics and they could become a public couple, she told the ICAC hearing. She also said their relationship wasn’t consequential enough to be disclosed. “It’s very difficult for someone in my position to have a private and personal life, and I’m very upset at what has transpired,” she said. (Patrick 2023)

Often certain private issues involving such affairs and which are key to accusations made, are never made public, and the view presented by the media is therefore confused and less than completely accurate. Any public right to know, or need to know, is also thrown out the window when issues of compassion and care for the partner, the family, for the politicians and public figures themselves, and for the other parties involved, come into consideration, especially those concerning mental health. Emotional and physical breakdowns can often arise out of such situations. For here we start to remember that affairs of the heart can give rise to incredible emotions and heartache which, once again, provide a reason for the privacy imperative when dealing with workplace romance, whether it be short-term or of a more substantial, long-term nature. Those who are the 'victims' of extramarital or other affairs, including partners, their friends and family, can sometimes retaliate through public exposure. The outcomes can be devastating for all involved, as privacy is denied. In the case of Berejiklian, her attempts to maintain privacy lead to findings of corrupt conduct in the public sphere, whilst Macguire's effort at hiding corrupt conduct were more blatant and not necessarily driven by matters of privacy.

Who is to judge here? In the Berejiklian : Macguire case it was clearly ICAC, but in the case of normal workplace romances free of instances of sexual harassment and political misconduct, it definitely is not those parties that are not directly involved, and fellow politicians or the media. If a politician, for example, is suspended from a political party due to "inappropriate behaviour" such as sexual harassment or abuse of power and conflict of interest, that is defensible. However, when it is for engaging in a consensual workplace romance, then that is indefensible. In all instances the legal caveat innocent until proven guilty remains in place, though is largely invisible in this and similar instances, as the media - like a rabid dog - feeds on rumour and innuendo, and often distorts and presents 'facts' according to a narrative that will gain the most attention and, in many cases, is the most salacious.

The issue here is, once again, whether organisations and HR departments should ban workplace romances. As the rest of this article points to, the present writer does not believe they should. In regards to politics and politicians as public figures, there can be an unwarranted amount of fallout associated with the revelation of workplace romances. Australia has not been devoid of these historically, with the most famous occurrence being the Junie Morosi and Jim Cairns affair of the early 1970s. Of course, everybody knows about the Monika Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton affair of 1995-7 which may be termed a one-sided workplace romance or, more specifically, an example of sexual hubris on the part of Clinton.

In 2018 Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull placed within the Liberal Party Ministerial Code of Conduct a ban on sex with staffers, whilst at the same time Barnaby Joyce, head of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, was involved in a publically revealed workplace romance (BBC 2018). Turnbull took no action on that matter, apart from publically criticising Joyce. Joyce refused to resign from parliament in that instance, stating that "private matters remain private." The Australian Greens party subsequently lead a motion in the federal senate calling for Joyce to resign for "clearly breaching the standards required of ministers" (Elton-Pym and Morgan 2018). Joyce and his partner went on to have two children and a long-term relationship leading to marriage. He had separated from his wife of 24 years prior to the public revelation of the workplace romance.

What exactly was meant in this case by "standards required of ministers" is not clear to the present writer. This phrase has been mentioned on numerous occasions, and not always in exactly that form, but nevertheless stating that as a minister of a government, such a person - male, female or other - is supposedly not allowed to engage in a workplace romance, or fall in love with a fellow workplace colleague, such as a member of staff or of a political party. Why, exactly? Is such a person expected to be different to every other person on the planet? It would seem so.

The imposition of such bans is inconsistent, selective and irrationale. For example, in the Australian context, there is nothing in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia official Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians or for Australian Parliamentary Staff or for Australian Parliamentary Workplaces which bans or prohibits workplace romances. It is not there because it cannot be there, due to some of the reasons outlined above. There is, nevertheless, clear prohibition and process for dealing with sexual and other forms of harassment, including bullying, and as of October 2024 the Australian federal Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission has been put into place to deal with such issues. However, where political parties, organisations, the media and individuals have banned workplace romances, or vilified them, they have done so, in the view of the present writer, outside of the law and outside of consideration of the rights of individuals, including the right to privacy. An example of this, and of the complex nature of such issues, is presented below. It pertains to the Australian Greens party, but likely applies to other Australian and overseas political parties.

-----------------------

5. The Hibbins affair

As the Forbes survey reveals, workplace romances are a very common reality, arising out of the free will of each and every mature individual to find a partner and fall in love. They are especially common amongst older, consenting adults. This fact is denied when society seeks to impose moral, religious and secular constraints, or punitive measures, upon workplace romances. None of this is new, though in 2024 the public vilification and implementation of organisational policies seeking to prohibit workplace romances has reached new extremes, driven by a corporate risk management philosophy which disregards respect for privacy and conflates the evolution of a loving relationship with sexual harassment. Various policies and actions by the Australian Greens political party can be used to reveal some of the confusion evident in dealing with workplace romances. For example, at the highest level within the organisation, the Australian Greens Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy (2021) points out:

3.1.3 Behaviour between two adults that is based on mutual attraction, consent, friendship and respect is not sexual harassment.

This is the closest the Greens come to referring to workplace romances, in identifying associated behaviours as not sexual harassment. Yet confusion between the two (i.e. sexual harassment vs. workplace romance) is revealed to varying degrees in the Sam Hibbins case which came to public attention during October - November 2024 (ABC 2024, Asher 2024, Yu 2024). Hibbins was a Australian politician and member of the Greens Party, representing the Victorian state electorate of Prahran. Apparently the Victorian Greens party room had imposed a policy on its politicians that banned intimate relationships with staffers, despite clause 3.1.3 of the above Australian Greens national policy specifically pointing out that they were not by default sexual harassment. Why, then, did the Victorian Greens party room introduction a prohibition on workplace romance? Precise details of this Victoria-based policy, and when it was put into place, are not known to the present writer, apart from what was revealed in media reports of the Hibbins affair. Like all such episodes, it did not occur in a vacuum. During October 2024, for example, the media had reported on concerns amongst Greens staff around Australia regarding bullying and inappropriate behaviour of a non-sexual kind, and of those concerns historically not being addressed (Sakkal and Massola 2024).

The Greens had been strong supporters during the immediate preceding years of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission creation and implementation as referred to above. It is assumed that arising out of this, there were non-official policies also put in place throughout the Greens party around Australia, at the state and local level, which went beyond the terms of the federal Commission and banned workplace romances due to a perceived connection with sexual harassment. The present writer has no specific evidence for that, apart from the circumstances of the Hibbins affair, as detailed below.

On Tuesday, 29 October 2024, the parliamentary head of the Victorian Greens, Ellen Sandell, was presented with the following, as reported publically across the national media three days later, on Friday, 1 November:

The Department of Parliamentary Services had informed her on Tuesday about an allegedly serious complaint against Mr Hibbins involving inappropriate behaviour towards a staff member. “He is no longer a member of our party room, and he will never be welcomed back as a member for our party room,” Ms Sandell told reporters. “He does not meet the standards of behaviour and expectations that I expect and my whole team expects … I don’t think he meets the standards of behaviour expected of any MP.” Ms Sandell said her understanding was that Mr Hibbins had confirmed some allegations and contested other claims. She said the staff member was “very distressed” and was being supported by the party. (Powell and Ton 2024)

It is important to note here that it is unclear from this report what the specific complaint was, and what member of Australian Greens party staff was involved. Sandell's reaction implied that it involved sexual harassment, but the writer has not been able to confirm that. In light of this, the information subsequently revealed through the media and discussed below is nothing if not confusing and does not directly resolve this matter.

It is also concerning that the reported "allegedly serious complaint" resulted in an immediate judgement of guilt on the part of Sandell and the subsequent punitive action taken. Was there a process here by the Greens Party Room to consider the allegations? It would appear not, judging by the media reports and the swift timeline involved. In such cases it is usual for the accused party or parties to "step aside" whilst the allegations are considered. This did not appear to happen with the Hibbins case, though, as noted above, the present writer does not have all the facts available beyond what was reported in the media.

The episode was reported in a number of such outlets, with slight variations in the limited specific information revealed. As a result of this we can develop an approximate timeline of related incidents involving Sam Hibbins. Any inaccuracies presented below arise out of the information provided by the media reports and statements contained therein. Hibbins has also states that some of the timelines presented by the media do not align with his recollections and records. The story apparently begins back in 2016.

2016

* November - a La Trobe University student intern known as 'Harriet' alleges that Sam Hibbins tried to kiss her on the mouth following a community event. She alleges that she said "No" and that he whispered in her ear "I shouldn't" (Asher 2024). 'Harriet' immediately reported the encounter to her University supervisor, going on to submit a formal complaint alleging sexual harassment by Hibbins to the Victorian Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS). That complaint would be formally managed on her behalf by the University.

- DPS notifies Hibbins of the complaint and, as a result, eventually responds to the University that they would not be referring any more interns on to the Hibbins office. Hibbins' precise response to the complaint at this time is not known, and media reports confuse what took place during 2018 with events in 2018.

2018

* The Hibbins office is assigned another University intern. As a result, 'Harriet' submits a second formal complaint to the DPS via the University, asking that no more interns be assigned to his office, as previously agreed to. At this time 'Harriet' determined not to proceed any further with the matter, given the subsequent reassurances that such internships would cease.

- 1 June - DPS and Harriet's University representative meet with Hibbins regarding the matter. Following the meeting, 'Harriet's University representative reports to her that: "Mr Hibbins recalled and acknowledged the events contained in [her] allegations ..... Mr Hibbins agreed to decline any further personal participation in any future internship programs [and] Mr Hibbins is willing to engage in a conversation with you about your concerns. This proposed conversation could be via telephone, in person and/or with the assistance of a third party such as a Mediator..... I also forwarded your request for an apology in writing. Mr Hibbins is not willing to provide this as we thought might be the case."

- Hibbins later states that, in variance with the above email, he agreed to offer an apology.

- At the time, the issue was dealt with by the DPS and the two parties involved, and settled as above.

- The Greens Party leadership and party room were informed by Hibbins of the allegations. This may have occurred during 2016 or 2018, or both.

early 2020s

* Hibbins engages in a workplace romance with a member of his office. It is a short-term, consensual affair and ends for unspecified reasons. It would seem that this workplace romance was not reported to DPS or the Greens Party at any stage during its activation. As noted in the above discussion, and specifically with the Berejiklian case, often the parties involved are unsure as to when it is the right or appropriate time to "go public" and announce an evolving personal relationship to any organisational HR department, which in this case would have been the DPS and the Greens Victoria party room.

2024

* Tuesday, 29 October - Ellen Sandell, Victorian Greens leader, is informed by the Victorian Department of Parliamentary Services of "inappropriate behaviour" over a period of time by Sam Hibbins. She meets with Mr Hibbins later that day. He confirms some of the unspecified allegations (likely that involving a recent affair with a staffer), and contests others (likely the 2016-2018 Intern incident, which had previously been reported).

- Hibbins is suspended from the Greens party room by Sandell and publically vilified by her.

* Wednesday & Thursday - Hibbins does not appear in parliament.

* Friday, 1 November - The Hibbins affair is made public around midday, as outlined in the aforementioned media extract referring to actions by the Greens party leader. No precise details of the "inappropriate behaviour" allegations are publically revealed. The Greens party room policy statement which, in part, gave rise to the sacking of Hibbins, is not made public. It is unclear who Sandell was referring to when she mentioned the "very distressed" staff member who was then being given assistance by the Party. Was this the person involved in the brief affair, or the intern 'Harriet', or another person?

* Hibbins makes a public statement in a video posted on Instagram. The only reason he gives for the action being taken is in regards to the consensual relationship with a member of his staff in breaching party room rules. The text of that live statement is as follows:

I am standing down from the Greens Party Room. I’ve had a consensual relationship with a staff member from my office. I recognise this was a significant error of judgment and understand the distress this has caused. This short relationship ended some time ago, but it does breach our party room rules. I accept the consequences of my decisions that affect my personal and professional lives. I am working to make amends to the most important people in my life, my family, and our community. I’ve always worked hard to advance the Greens' cause, and know this is a distraction from my work and the work of the Greens, but I remain committed to serving my electorate of Prahran. At a time when life is so difficult for so many, when people are struggling and are already disengaged from politics, I know something like this will shake people's trust in politicians and politics even further. We are human, and we make mistakes. The important thing is making amends and focusing on what really matters. For me, it’s my beautiful family. It's continuing my fight for social and economic justice and the unacceptable fact that so many Victorians cannot afford groceries or a place to live. It’s continuing to fight for the fantastic community I love and live in, Prahran. I leave the party room with goodwill towards my Greens colleagues. They’re doing a terrific job. I wish them well in the future. I deeply regret what has happened. I have made a very human mistake, but I am working to find the best way forward. Thanks. Sam

- Jackie Felgate, a presenter of Melbourne Radio 3AW, castigates Hibbins and the Greens on her radio program around 3.40pm. There is only reference to a workplace romance in her castigation.

- Member for Mildura Jade Benham speaks on the Jackie Felgate radio program and suggests that Hibbins should not remain in parliament as an Independent. Radio 3AW, duration: 4 minutes.

* mid November - Vandalism of the Hibbins parliamentary office in Prahran takes place.

* Saturday, 23 November - Hibbins announces he is quitting parliament, following vandalism of his parliamentary office, and citing concerns regarding the mental health of his family, which comprises a wife and two children.

- Sky News Australia runs a story on the Hibbins affair.

* Monday, 25 November - the ABC reports that 'Harriet' had contacted them in regards to the 2016-2018 sexual harassment allegation. 'Harriet's stated that following a viewing of the Hibbins Instagram video of 1 November:

"I felt angry and frustrated because he said that it was a 'human mistake' and that it was a lapse of judgement. I just don't accept that that is what it is. I don't think that his behaviour is what we expect of elected MPs." Video.

Here Harriet is criticising the workplace romance, seemingly conflating it with her own sexual harassment complaint. Her feeling "angry and frustrated" resulted in her giving ABC TV an interview, which in turn resulted in the newspaper article cited above. She also reiterates the earlier statement by Sandell, that the behaviour of Hibbins is not "what we expect of elected MPs." Once again, if she is referring to sexual harassment, then that is understandable as a generic statement; if, on the other hand, she is referring to Hibbins engaging in a workplace romance, then that is another example of a subject opinion.

- 7News runs a story on the Hibbins affair. In it, it appears to confuse the recent workplace romance with the 2016-201818 sexual harassment complaint, implying that he was sacked because of the former.

* Tuesday, 26 November - ABC reports that the Greens party was not made aware of the 2018 allegations against Hibbins. The head of the DPS makes a statement to the contrary. The Greens later confirm that Hibbins had informed the Party on the episode during 2018.

- Hibbins indicates that he may take action against defamation in regards to reportage of the 'Harriet' allegation, as the statements by various individuals in the ABC reportage does not align with his records of the events of 2016-18.

* Wednesday, 27 November - ABC news report on the Hibbins affair includes a TV interview with 'Harriet' and additional comments by Sandell, duration: 2.08 minutes.

----------------

The above chronology leaves the writer with some confusion over what accusations were made, what parties were involved, and what actually took place as a result of the allegations and actualities. For example:

(1) Was the workplace romance by Hibbins and one of his staff members simply that of two adults engaging in a short-term consensual affair which had ended in the past, as he stated?

(20) Upon information being brought to the attention of the Party leader, why had this resulted in her aforementioned statement that, due to a Party room policy against such activity, she immediately dismissed Hibbins from the party room and castigated him in public, similar to what happened with the Brendan Joyce affair?

(2) What role did the 'Harriet' incident of 2016 and second complaint of 2018 play in Sandell's statements regarding Hibbins and his immediate ejection from the party room?

(3) Were there other complaints made against Hibbins between 2016-2024?

(4) Was the Greens staffer involved in the previous consensual workplace romance now responsible for a complaint to the DPS? Was that person now in a distressed state over the ending of the relationship?

The waters are muddied in the Higgins case by the vague reference made by the Party leader to the press regarding Higgins' "inappropriate behaviour" over a period of time and of the Party member who was “very distressed” and ... being supported by the party. What this means, precisely, is unknown. If the sexual harassment incident of 2016 was proven, then Hibbins has a different case to answer, and a darker light is placed on the matter beyond that of a simple workplace romance as in the later staffer affair. If this is not the case, then the Party leader's vagueness - presented as a means of protecting the identity of the unknown "very distressed" person involved - gives rise to ambiguity amongst the public and fellow Party members. Furthermore, the comments by parliamentarian Jade Benham suggested that there had been rumours floating around the corridors of parliament concerning Hibbins' activities, which may or may not have been related to these two cases. It is therefore difficult to make precise comments on aspects of the case. For this reason, the present writer, and within this article, focuses on activities related to workplace romances, outside of the issue of sexual harassment and the complexities therein.

Following the 29 October 2024 accusations, Hibbins was immediately suspended from the Greens Victoria party room and, two weeks later, arising out of a period of public vilification, announced he was quiting parliament. During those two weeks his parliamentary office was vandalised. It can be seen from the comments of radio presenter Jackie Felgate and Liberal Party politician Jade Benham that the conservative side of politics and media addressed the issue with a degree of verbal viciousness, which was also hinted at in Sandell's comments.

The present writer would take issue with the way in which workplace romances involving politicians are publically assessed by the media and many of the public at large. The Hibbins and Barnaby Joyce affairs are cases in point. The most vicious and virulent statements can be seen therein, with no respect for privacy or impact upon the parties involved and, barring reference to the alleged 2016 sexual harassment complaint against Hibbins, both instances involved genuine workplace romances between consenting adults.

Whether Hibbins takes the Greens or any other party to court for unfair dismissal or defamation which, in turn, would subject him and his family to further stress, remains to be seen. In the view of the present writer, it is highly unlikely. Likewise, whether the judiciary would seek to get involved in affairs of the heart is also unlikely, though as mentioned above, the legality of prohibition of workplace romances in light of anti-discrimination legislation would provide an impetus for legal clarification and very possibly come down on the side of respect for privacy. Matters of discrimination, whether sexual or otherwise, are more easily dealt with by the legal system, and defence of workplace romance may be upheld if couched in such terms.

----------------------

6. Conclusions

The issue of love and romance in the workplace is one that needs to be managed by an organisation in order to ensure that there are no adverse outcomes brought to bear in regards to legal and other liabilities, and that the workplace itself is not adversely affected. Various policies and procedures can be put in place to deal with this. However, any such measures need to take into account the following:

1. Recognize the normalcy and commonality of workplace romance.
2. Respect the privacy of the parties involved.
3. Respect the consensual nature of workplace romances.
4. Ensure that sexual harassment is not conflated with workplace romance.
5. Ensure that sexual harassment policies and procedures are in place.
   
6. Punitive measures banning workplace romances are a gross invasion of privacy and discriminatory. They should not be implemented.
   

When workplace romances occur, the parties involved should be able to contact HR in confidence (if required and at an appropriate stage of the development of the releationship), and receive advice as to how they should proceed to ensure that adverse outcomes do not arise which impact upon the workplace. Such advice should not be of a threatening or punitive nature, as this can open the organisation to accusations of discrimination. 

As in the past, the issue of privacy is core to workplace romance. The parties involved have traditionally done all they could to keep such affairs private and secret, and at the same time ensure no impact upon the workplace. This is obviously in their best interests - it always was, and always will be. It would seem that the new regime of mandatory reportage and increasing prohibition is disastrous for both those who happen to fall in love, and for any organisation that has implemented such policies and banned such activity. The workplace needs to return to the situation as it was in the past, where privacy is primary and falling in love with a co-worker is okay.

Love is in the air ......

-----------------------

7. References

ABC, Victorian Greens MP stepping down from party after engaging in relationship with staff, ABC - State and Territory Parliament, 1 November 2024.

-----, Victorian Greens leader defends party's response after intern complaint over Sam Hibbins's alleged behaviour, ABC - State and Territory Parliament, 26 November 2024.

Advocate KHOJ, Adultery Islam, Advocate KHOJ, accessed 28 November 2024.

Asher, Nicole, Former parliamentary intern alleges ex-Victorian Greens MP Sam Hibbins tried to kiss her, ABC Stateline, 25 November 2024.

Australian Greens, Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy, Australian Greens, July 2021, 24p.

BBC, Barnaby Joyce: Australia's scandal-hit deputy PM to resign, BBC, 23 February 2018.

Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023.

Elsesser, Kim, These 6 surprising office romance stats should be a wake-up call for organizations, Forbes, 14 February 2019.

....., 82% in workplace romance keep it secret, according to new survey, Forbes, 13 February 2023.

Elton-Pym, James, and Myles Morgan, Sex ban for ministers and staff following Joyce's 'shocking error of judgement': Turnbull, SBS, 16 February 2018.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Committee, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023. c.f. Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission.

Lufkin, Bryan, The inevitability of the office romance, BBC, 2 March 2022.

Main, Kelly, Workplace relations statistics: Survey shows employees engage regularly in office relationships, Forbes, 30 April 2024.

Mainiero, Lisa, Workplace romance versus sexual harassment: a call to action regarding sexual hubris and sexploitation in the #MeToo era, Gender in Management, 36(4), 2020, 329-347.

Noori, Rebecca, The state of workplace connection in 2024: How close is your team?, Nectar, 22 October 2024.

Parliamentary Workplace Support Services Act, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023.

Patrick, Aaron, Gladys Berejiklian ICAC report: When the Premiere of NSW took a corrupt lover, Financial Review, 29 June 2023.

Powell, Caitlin and William Ton, Greens MP 'never welcome back' after staffer affair, Australian Associated Press, 1 November 2024.

Romance in the workplace: Risks and solutions, Thompson Reuters - Practice Management, 13 February 2024.

Sakkal, Paul and James Massola, Greens staffers on 'toxic bullying' culture in their own words, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 October 2024.

Workplace love affairs, FaidiHR, 30 August 2024.

Workplace romance statistics show office relationships are common, The Workers Rights, 25 April 2023.

Yakley, Louise, Malcolm Turnbull bans ministers from sex with staffers, but resists calls to ask Barnaby Joyce to resign, ABC, 16 February 2018.

Yu, Andi, Prahran MP Sam Hibbins announces he is quitting parliament, ABC Stateline, 23 November 2024.

Zhang, Amy, Workplace romances: love contracts and non-fraternisation policies, INSIDEHR, 16 October 2023. Summary: Workplace romances will occur regardless of steps taken by employers to quell them. This makes it imperative for employers to be alive to the risks that can arise from workplace relationships and to appropriately manage them through adequate policies and systems. While some things may not work in the Australian context per the above, employers should at the very least consider what, if any, additional measures can and should be introduced to protect their business when it comes to romance in the workplace.

----------------------

Last updated: 12 December 2024