Think tank accused of ‘retaliatory action' after staffer complaint about high-profile director
Emilie Dye, who until recently worked as a marketing and research analyst at the right-leaning Centre for Independent Studies, has lodged applications with the Fair Work Commission alleging Switzer rubbed her leg, told her she had a 'great arse' and described himself as 'a very sexual guy' on a night out.
In response to detailed questions from this masthead, Switzer 'categorically denied' the allegations and said he had 'already decided' to quit as the head of the think tank before Dye's complaint.
'Following an intensive and debilitating time of being diagnosed with cancer and enduring chemotherapy, I had already decided to relinquish my post and had advised a number of people within the organisation of my intent,' he said.
Fair Work applications allege both that Switzer sexually harassed Dye, and that the think tank engaged in 'retaliatory' action against her after she refused to sign a confidentiality agreement over the incident.
This masthead does not suggest the allegations against Switzer are true, just that they have been lodged with both the CIS and the Fair Work Commission. They are yet to be formally investigated.
The Fair Work applications follow a detailed internal complaint lodged with the CIS the night after the alleged incident at Alfie's Steakhouse in Sydney's CBD in March.
The complaint prompted an apology from CIS chairman Nicholas Moore, and Switzer resigned as executive director less than a month later.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
4 hours ago
- Perth Now
'Hero' surgeon loses defamation case against Nine
High-profile orthopedic surgeon Munjed Al Muderis has had defamation proceedings against Nine and three of its journalists dismissed after a court ruled the media company's reporting was in the public interest. Reports published in Nine newspapers and broadcast on 60 Minutes in September 2022 raised concerns over the surgeon's practice. But the Federal Court on Friday ruled the journalists responsible - Charlotte Grieve, Tom Steinfort and Natalie Clancy - held objectively reasonable beliefs information available to the public about the surgeon's practice was critically incomplete. The positive media coverage his practice had enjoyed needed correcting and the investigation revealed another side to the surgeon's work. "That a number of Dr Al Muderis' patients had negative experiences with significant similarities was something the public, especially prospective patients, needed to be informed of," Justice Wendy Abraham said, dismissing the surgeon's defamation application. "Patients should be making their decisions with both sides of the story." The company and its journalists accepted Dr Al Muderis was "an Australian hero" to many, but argued the investigation revealed a significant cohort of patients were left unhappy or negatively impacted by his services. The Iraqi refugee, named a 2020 NSW Australian of the Year, was particularly known for osseointegration surgeries, attaching implants to the bones of amputated limbs. The reporting would have been understood as conveying Dr Al Muderis' practice included using improper sales tactics, misleading patients, providing negligent post-operative care, and prioritising money, fame, and reputation over his patients, Justice Abraham said. But the reports also conveyed many patients had positive experiences. The court accepted Nine's defence of contextual truth, finding some defamatory imputations found to be substantially true were of such seriousness other claimed defamatory imputations would not have further harmed the surgeon's reputation. The case was one of the first significant tests of the public interest defence to defamation introduced in 2021. The ABC earlier failed in its attempt to use the defence in relation to reports which defamed former army commando Heston Russell.
Sydney Morning Herald
5 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Privacy watchdog sues Optus over mass data breach
'We strive every day to protect our customers' information and have been working hard to minimise any impact the cyberattack may have had. As the matter is now before the Australian courts, Optus will not be commenting further at this time.' Optus is already facing Federal Court claims by Australia's communications watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, over the cyberattack. The watchdog claims Optus should have known it had a flaw in its system four years before its customers' data was stolen in 2022. The cyberattack kicked off a hellish period for Australia's second-largest telco, which suffered a separate 12-hour outage about a year later. Optus lost thousands of customers as a result of the outage and CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin and other top executives resigned soon after. Bayer Rosmarin was later replaced by former NBN Co chief Stephen Rue. The Optus breach also led to tougher penalties for serious or repeated breaches of customer data; organisations that fail to adequately protect people's data now face fines of $50 million or more. The peak communications consumer body, ACCAN, said it was hopeful the court action would drive cultural change in the telco sector. In June, Optus agreed to pay $100 million in penalties over 'unconscionable conduct' related to selling vulnerable customers products they could not afford or use. 'This court action demonstrates how far short Optus fell from what consumers expect and deserve from their telcos,' ACCAN chief executive Carol Bennett said. 'We have a long way to go to remedy the sorts of practices and behaviours we have seen from Optus over the past few years. It paints a picture of a telco that has lost sight of its obligation to consumers in delivering an essential service that consumers need and rely upon. 'Changing that culture won't be easy and this very significant action from [the Information Commissioner's office] is yet another wake-up call … It seems Optus have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to accepting their moral and ethical responsibility to Australians.' Loading Tom Sulston, the head of policy of lobby group Digital Rights Watch, also welcomed the action and said businesses should be minimising the amount of personal information they store, and the period for which they hold it. He also described the move as a further case for privacy reform. 'As a rule, companies do tend to hang on to more information than they need and for longer than they need it. Some of that is due to regulation – such as metadata retention – but plenty is down to companies' desire to find ways to monetise our information,' he said.
The Age
5 hours ago
- The Age
Privacy watchdog sues Optus over mass data breach
'We strive every day to protect our customers' information and have been working hard to minimise any impact the cyberattack may have had. As the matter is now before the Australian courts, Optus will not be commenting further at this time.' Optus is already facing Federal Court claims by Australia's communications watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, over the cyberattack. The watchdog claims Optus should have known it had a flaw in its system four years before its customers' data was stolen in 2022. The cyberattack kicked off a hellish period for Australia's second-largest telco, which suffered a separate 12-hour outage about a year later. Optus lost thousands of customers as a result of the outage and CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin and other top executives resigned soon after. Bayer Rosmarin was later replaced by former NBN Co chief Stephen Rue. The Optus breach also led to tougher penalties for serious or repeated breaches of customer data; organisations that fail to adequately protect people's data now face fines of $50 million or more. The peak communications consumer body, ACCAN, said it was hopeful the court action would drive cultural change in the telco sector. In June, Optus agreed to pay $100 million in penalties over 'unconscionable conduct' related to selling vulnerable customers products they could not afford or use. 'This court action demonstrates how far short Optus fell from what consumers expect and deserve from their telcos,' ACCAN chief executive Carol Bennett said. 'We have a long way to go to remedy the sorts of practices and behaviours we have seen from Optus over the past few years. It paints a picture of a telco that has lost sight of its obligation to consumers in delivering an essential service that consumers need and rely upon. 'Changing that culture won't be easy and this very significant action from [the Information Commissioner's office] is yet another wake-up call … It seems Optus have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to accepting their moral and ethical responsibility to Australians.' Loading Tom Sulston, the head of policy of lobby group Digital Rights Watch, also welcomed the action and said businesses should be minimising the amount of personal information they store, and the period for which they hold it. He also described the move as a further case for privacy reform. 'As a rule, companies do tend to hang on to more information than they need and for longer than they need it. Some of that is due to regulation – such as metadata retention – but plenty is down to companies' desire to find ways to monetise our information,' he said.
