SAMPLE REPORT
HRM20017 - Managing Workplace
Relations
Semester 1 2019
Assessment 1: Group IR Dispute Analysis
Dr Chen v Monash
... [Show More] University
1
Executive Summary
This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the Dr Chen v Monash University case. The methods of
analysis involved applying a variety of theories and models such as sources of power, negotiation tactics
and strategies, as well as relevant legal issues to the case of Dr Chen v Monash University.
Recommendations made include:
● An update to Monash’s policy regarding disputes of this nature.
● The continuation of negotiations past the point of the offer of compromise.
● The legal system placing a higher emphasis on alternative dispute resolution methods.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Table of Contents 4
Dr Chen v Monash University - The Facts 5
The negotiation 6
The relationship of the case to relevant Acts of Parliament
and other legal issues 7
Opinion on the actions of the parties and the outcome of the
case 8
Application of theory and models
1. Potential sources of power 9
2. Outcome 10
3. Possible strategies used by Dr Chen and Monash University 11
4. Negotiation tactics 11
Conclusion/recommendations 13
References 14
3
Dr Chen v Monash University - The Facts
In 2011 Senior Lecturer and Associate Professor, Dr Qizhi Chen (Chen), made 53 claims of
sexual harassment and sexual discrimination against senior academic staff at Monash University
(Monash), which were claimed to have happened over a 5 year period. The first complaint by
Chen was filed with the Human Right Commission and was terminated. In January 2013, Chen
was advised by the Victorian Legal Aid Office that the court would most likely find her claims
unjustified as they did not constitute sexual harassment. Disregarding this advice, on February
28th 2013 Chen filed an application in the Federal Court seeking monetary relief and declaration
with regards to her allegations. During these proceedings Chen was self-represented. On the 27th
February 2015 Chen’s 53 claims were all rejected as they could not “as a matter of law,
constitute sex discrimination or harassment or because they are not supported by the evidence
before the court or both,” according to Federal Court Justice Richard Tracey.
It is also noted that while Chen stated that these instances occurred around 2008, they were only
brought to light in 2011, after she had been rejected twice for a promotion. This finding
highlights the potential malicious intent of Chen’s accusations, as it appears to be a method of
increasing her wealth. In order to do so, Chen fabricated events and made them appear
discriminatory or as sexual harassment. However, in 2015 Chen was ordered to pay Monash and
a few senior academics $900,000 in indemnity costs, after she rejected an early offer of $30,000
to close the case (McCann, 2015). [Show Less]