Corruption finding a factor in CIT job offer being withdrawn, ACAT told

The Canberra Institute of Technology used the recent corruption finding against its former CEO as one justification for withdrawing a job offer to someone who admitted to a criminal record.

The “devastated” single mother of two went to the ACT Human Rights Commission, which referred the matter to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, claiming she was discriminated against.

The ACT Integrity Commission found former CIT CEO Leanne Cover had acted corruptly in concealing from the board the awarding of two contracts worth $5.5 million to “complexity and systems thinker” Patrick Hollingworth.

In March 2023, CIT offered the woman a permanent job after a selection process for a start on 26 April but withdrew it on 23 May because of her “irrelevant” criminal record, which she had disclosed in her application.

The woman had resigned from her previous position in the ACT Public Service to take the role and has not applied elsewhere for employment as a public servant or in the private sector.

In written submissions, CIT argued that the woman’s criminal record was relevant and not a protected attribute under the Discrimination Act.

Meghan Oldfield, for whom the woman would have worked as an executive support officer, decided to withdraw the job offer.

Ms Oldfield considered the woman’s criminal record when it became known to her and provided her with an opportunity to explain it, but decided it was incompatible with the job requirements.

In her submission, the woman said she had suggested to Ms Oldfield that she did not understand how someone could be given a chance if no one gave them one.

She said that she presented well enough to win the position, but as soon as her record became known, she was immediately judged.

The woman suggested that she was not able to explain her criminal record in sufficient detail because she had not done that before.

Ms Oldfield responded that it was a question of balance and not a black-and-white issue.

She was not confident that the past behaviour would not be repeated or would not pose a risk to her or the job.

One of her key reasons included the public scrutiny that the CIT had been under due to the Integrity Commission’s investigations.

She also did not think enough time had elapsed since the criminal events; they had a physical and an antisocial component and were repeated.

While Ms Oldfield believed reform was possible, the role involved full access to all of her diaries and emails, and given the timeline of the woman’s record, she was not confident the conduct would not be repeated.

The Tribunal found the Integrity Commission’s investigation should not have swayed Ms Oldfield, but the other reasons were appropriate.

“Her conclusion was conservative, and the outcome was devastating for the complainant,” Senior Member L Drake said.

“I am persuaded that they are matters that she was entitled to take into account and consider as she did. The conclusion was available to her.

“I am satisfied and find that the respondent did not directly discriminate against the complainant in her employment based on her criminal record.

“I am satisfied and find that the complainant does not have a protected attribute, an irrelevant criminal record. Her offences were relevant to her suitability for the position with Ms Oldfield.”