It has everything to do with J*, Lert. They recognise the fact it happened on their time and they appear to be supporting the cause. This does not mean it is J* taking action against the b!tch; they're a difference and it seems J* appreciate this. For once (from what I hear) acting pro-staff.
The company has a "duty of care" to provide a safe working environment and it may come to pass that if they are seen as not doing this or are not making a serious attempt to protect their staff then it could precipitate industrial/OH&S action down the track.
If you believe this means protecting staff from idiots like this woman, then you might be a part of the problem rather than the solution.
The campany shouldn't have to dance around reacting to every act of anti-social behaviour by any miscreant who walks through the door. Okay, maybe kick the arses of the security morons whose fat @rses maybe took too long to get there and stop the second punch.
Are there gaping holes in the floor, waiting to endanger the staff, or anything like that? No? Do they provide hearing protection and hi-vis vests for the staff? Well then I think they are providing a safe environment. Saying they need to preempt some slag like this uni-bitch is unrealistic and silly.
As for the conviction, I'd say if the strikes had been described as "slaps" or even "bitch-slaps" then there'd be a case for letting her off. But if they were truly "punches" then this bitch should be on ice.