Survivor-Centred Workplace Remedy Board Adviser

The mandate

Independent investigations substantiated harassment and management failures across two creative studios, but recommendations focus more on discipline and policy than on the people harmed. Survivors have different preferences regarding contact, team movement, career restoration, confidentiality and acknowledgement; several fear subtle exclusion after reporting. Managers do not know how long non-retaliation monitoring should continue, and the board lacks evidence that broader changes address the conditions that enabled harm. It wants independent counsel on remedy without reopening findings.

The adviser will challenge a remedy framework covering immediate safety, informed choice, support access, work arrangements, career and pay effects, confidentiality, non-retaliation, manager accountability, team repair and institutional prevention. Advice must recognise that no single outcome restores every person and that participation cannot be coerced. It must distinguish individual remedy, employment decision, legal settlement, disciplinary response and organisational learning while respecting the scope and conclusions of completed investigations.

The cadence includes confidential fortnightly work with the remedy lead, monthly board-committee attendance and two protected regional reviews conducted through agreed survivor and representative channels. The adviser will review de-identified pathways and control evidence rather than interview survivors unless they independently opt in under an approved protocol. Board papers will avoid unnecessary personal detail and explicitly identify counsel, clinician, investigator or representative dependencies.

The adviser has no line authority and assumes no executive responsibility for case management, support, discipline, settlement, communications or employment decisions. The role cannot direct survivor choices, revisit findings, promise confidentiality, contact respondents, set compensation, approve transfers or act as clinician or lawyer. Authorised executives deliver remedy; counsel and representatives protect rights; the board oversees accountability. Advice cannot be cited to pressure participation.

The appointment runs nine months. Extension requires a separate minuted remedy question after outstanding individual and institutional actions are reviewed. The adviser must disclose ties to involved leaders, investigators, counsel, support providers, unions, creative agencies and advocacy groups. Any personal or commercial conflict triggers recusal, and no legal, clinical, placement or communications referral compensation may be accepted.

Why the board wants this voice

Investigators determine facts, management implements employment action and counsel manages legal exposure, but none automatically owns survivor choice and institutional repair. Internal leaders may also prioritise closure before trust and career effects are understood. An independent remedy adviser can test whether actions are safe and credible without reopening allegations or controlling individual outcomes.

What you will own

• Challenge remedy pathways for safety, informed choice, support access, work arrangements, career effects, confidentiality and acknowledgement.
• Test non-retaliation monitoring across assignments, performance, promotion, pay, access, social exclusion and manager conduct.
• Review manager and institutional actions against substantiated causes without revisiting or expanding investigative findings.
• Advise on survivor participation protocols, representative access, data minimisation, opt-out rights and protected communication.
• Frame board indicators for delayed remedy, recurrence, career harm, retaliation signals, control closure and unresolved dependency.
• Maintain a restricted advice, conflict, recusal and decision record without creating a parallel survivor case file.
• Deliver a closing remedy charter, accountability map, monitoring calendar and independent residual-risk opinion.

Candidate qualifications

• Has advised boards or institutions on survivor-centred workplace remedy following substantiated harassment or abuse findings involving senior leaders.
• Understands safety, informed choice, non-retaliation, career restoration, support pathways, confidentiality and representative rights.
• Can distinguish individual remedy from investigation, discipline, legal settlement, clinical care and culture programming.
• Has challenged subtle retaliation and professional exclusion that conventional case-closure measures failed to detect.
• Brings trusted engagement with survivors, representatives, investigators, counsel, clinicians and accountable executives.
• Is independent of legal, clinical, communications, placement and investigation-referral economics.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend monthly Amsterdam sessions and both protected regional reviews under strict information controls.
• Brings direct post-finding remedy experience; general investigations or culture-change work alone is insufficient.
• Will not reopen findings, pressure participation, promise absolute confidentiality or treat settlement as complete remedy.
• Will disclose relationships with involved parties, investigators, firms, providers, unions and advocacy organisations.

1. 49 words maximum. Which career signal could indicate retaliation after a case has formally closed?
2. 49 words maximum. How would you preserve survivor choice while giving the board evidence of remedy?
3. 49 words maximum. What institutional action belongs outside an individual legal settlement?