“Highly questionable”

Equal Treatment Office Criticizes ORF for Its Actions

Director General Ingrid Thurnher has once again received unpleasant correspondence regarding the case involving her predecessor.(Bild: Imre Antal, APA/HELMUT FOHRINGER)

The ORF has once again received some unpleasant mail. The Equal Treatment Authority has reprimanded the public broadcaster’s compliance office for its handling of the Roland Weißmann case following its review. It is not the authority’s role to determine whether “sexual harassment” occurred in this instance. After all, judgments on criminal offenses remain the purview of the judiciary ...

The Equal Treatment Authority (GAW) is part of the Federal Ministry for Women, Science, and Research, where it monitors compliance with the Equal Treatment Act (GIBG). The GAW has now sent a letter to interim ORF Director Ingrid Thurnher. 

This is because, following a compliance review of the Weißmann case, the ORF was quick to state in a report that there was “no sexual harassment in the criminal sense” here. Weißmann herself even described the report as a “key document.”

“Clarification is reserved for the courts”
But it’s not that simple, argues the GAW: “The findings of the ORF’s compliance unit and the subsequent reporting appear highly questionable from the GAW’s perspective. The legally binding determination of whether (sexual) harassment has occurred is expressly reserved for the Austrian (criminal) courts, the independent Equal Treatment Commissions established by law precisely for this purpose, and the ORF’s internal Equal Treatment Commission enshrined in the ORF Act (§ 30k).” 

There are clear rules of evidence for these proceedings, and these must be adhered to, the GAW continues: “There is no legal basis whatsoever for a compliance body, as apparently in this case, to have the authority to decide or determine whether sexual harassment exists ‘in the legal sense.’ However, the wording chosen in the report (e.g., “not established with the necessary probability,” “in the legal sense,” “overall assessment”) suggests precisely such authority.”

The ORF is currently making headlines.(Bild: P. Huber)

“Representing the company’s interests”
This would create the impression that a compliance office makes legally binding decisions: “It is clear that they represent the interests of the company, not those of the affected individuals, and that they cannot make conclusive findings. In any case, there is no legal basis for this.”

The GAW goes even further and identifies ORF’s communication surrounding the compliance report as the basis for “a reversal of perpetrator and victim roles,” which has reportedly taken place to some extent in the public sphere. Furthermore, media reports surrounding the case certainly suggest that “from the GAW’s perspective, these could indeed be credible accounts of sexual harassment within the meaning of the GlBG.” But as mentioned: it is up to a court to assess this. 

Roland Weißmann, who had been accused by a female employee of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior, had in any case announced that he would take legal action against his dismissal. This would, in any case, be handled by a labor court. Whether he might ultimately also find himself in criminal court remains to be seen.