Conciliation Register

The complainant is a woman and alleged the respondent bowls club did not admit women as full members.

The bowls club claimed that its constitution empowered and allowed its male-only committee to deny women full membership to the club.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club accept the Complainant’s application for full membership and an acknowledgement by the club that women are entitled to full membership of the club.
 

The respondent provided accommodation to the complainant, who was a distant relative from overseas. The complainant alleged the respondent sexually harassed her, including by making sexual comments, sending sexual text messages, showing her pornographic images and saying he would not have invited her to come live with him if he knew she would not have sex with him.

On being informed of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages.

The complainant was engaged in fly-in fly-out work for the respondent mining company. She alleged male team members and team leaders discriminated against her because of her sex and sexually harassed her, including by touching her buttocks, making comments of a sexual nature, and touching each other on the buttocks and penis. The complainant said she did not feel safe in the workplace and resigned because she felt she had no other option.

On being notified of the complaint, the mining company agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the mining company pay the complainant $55,000 and write to her apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint.
 

The complainant is a transgender woman. She alleged that a staff member of the respondent supermarket told her she was not a woman and laughed at her for wearing a dress.

On being advised of the complaint, the supermarket indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket apologise to the complainant for the events giving rise to the complaint and take the opportunity to remind staff of their obligations to treat all customers with dignity and respect.

The complainant worked for a community organisation and alleged that a volunteer stroked her arm and embraced her without her consent at a work event. She said she reported the incident to the organisation and the police. She said the organisation found that the volunteer had breached its Code of Conduct but allowed him to keep working with the organisation. She alleged the matter would have been handled differently if she had been a man.

The community organisation denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The community organisation undertook to educate staff on harassment, review its policies and procedures on responding to reports of harassment, and make clear announcements about any changes to policy or procedure. The organisation also undertook to take steps to improve the conduct of volunteers, including developing selection criteria for volunteers, updating the Code of Conduct for volunteers, properly briefing volunteers on their obligations under the Code of Conduct, and developing a process to addressed alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by volunteers.

The complainant has a disability that affects his speech and was a client of the respondent government agency. He alleged his case worker kept asking him to repeat himself because she could not understand him and this caused his impairment to become more pronounced. 

On being notified of the complaint, the agency indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency write to the complainant expressing regret for his experience and update his file to identify the adjustments he requires. The agency also undertook to remind staff of their obligations under disability discrimination law and standards of practice.

The complainant is 64 years of age and was employed by the respondent computer wholesaler and IT services provider. Employees under the age of 65 were covered by a group salary continuance insurance policy which provided a monthly income benefit in case of total or partial disability due to illness or injury. Employees who were members of the corporate superannuation fund were also covered by a death and total and permanent disability insurance policy which provided a lump sum payable on death or total and permanent disablement. Cover under the latter policy progressively decreased after an employee turned 60 years of age until age 65 when cover ceased completely. The complainant alleged the company discriminated against him on the ground of age by not providing him with the same insurance benefits available to other employees.

The company said that it was not contractually or statutorily required to offer these insurance benefits and that participation in these arrangements was therefore not a term or condition of employment. The company claimed that the age restrictions were features of the insurance policies it procured and that it was unable to control what insurance products were commercially available.

The complaint was resolved. The company undertook to inform staff impacted by the age restrictions as soon as possible and to look for policies with fewer age restrictions when it was time to source new policies. The company also agreed that if the complainant could source a policy in the market that covered him and that was capable of being salary sacrificed, it could facilitate the salary-sacrifice arrangements.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder and has an assistance dog. She booked an overnight stay at the respondent caravan park. She alleged that the caravan park told her only guide dogs were allowed at the park, declined to look at her dog’s identification and advised her to find alternative accommodation.

On being notified of the complaint, the caravan park indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the caravan park write to the complainant apologising for the incident, display a sign stating that assistance animals are welcome at the park and donate $150 to an agreed assistance animal not-for-profit organisation.

The complainant has schizophrenia and a back injury and was employed in an IT role with the respondent government agency. He alleged he was treated less favourably because he has schizophrenia, including by being excluded from the workplace, being given excessive work to perform at home, having his personal property tampered with and being referred to as ‘weird’. He also alleged the agency failed to accommodate his back injury, including not allowing him to sit during standing meetings, not letting him work part-time and failing to provide easier access to bathroom facilities.

The agency claimed it made reasonable adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s back injury in line with his treating doctor’s recommendations. The agency said it only became aware the complainant has schizophrenia when he undertook a fitness for duty assessment after commencing leave due to ill health. The complainant subsequently resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the distress he reported, provide him with a statement of service and pay him $2,000 in compensation for non-economic loss.
 

The complainant has an intellectual disability and was enrolled in a course with the respondent vocational training provider to attain a qualification in aged care. She alleged she was refused an extension of time to complete the course requirements to accommodate her disability and her enrolment was terminated.

On being notified of the complaint, the training organisation indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the training organisation take proactive steps to ensure that students who disclose a learning or cognitive disability understand the requirements of the course in which they have enrolled and their ability to ask for adjustments to accommodate their disability. The training organisation also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the distress she experienced as a result of the breakdown in communication, provide her with a statement of attainment for units completed and offer her a $250 voucher for a service that provides assistance in resume development and other job seeking skills.

The complainant has arthritis and is unable to stand for extended periods. He alleged the respondent bowling club declined his request to have a small folding chair on the green while playing the position of ‘skipper’ in order to help him manage the pain associated with his disability.

The bowling club said it declined the request because a chair on the green would present a risk to the safety of players. The club noted all players have access to chairs off the green and the skipper is not required to be on the green at all times. The club proposed the use of a different aid approved by the national sporting authority.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant develop an alternative disability aid and the club consider approval of the aid for use in the sport.

The complainant was 69 years of age and has osteoarthritis. He said his local supermarket changed its payment policy to only allow payment by credit or debit card. He alleged this practice was discriminatory because older persons and persons with disability were more likely to experience difficulties in obtaining and using credit and/or debit cards.

The respondent supermarket advised it conducted a trial of card-only payment systems in some of these stores. The supermarket advised the trial had concluded and all stores accepted cash payments. The supermarket said that it appreciated that it may have moved ahead of community expectations and that not all customers felt welcome using card-only payment systems.

The complainant advised he considered his complaint resolved based on the supermarket’s assurances that all stores once again accepted cash payments.

The complainant is deafblind and uses a guide dog. She alleged that when she attended the respondent restaurant with her family, she was told she could not bring her ‘pet dog’ into the restaurant despite informing staff it was a guide dog. She alleged the owner asked her and her family to sit in a different section of the restaurant and then called the police.

The restaurant denied discriminating against the complainant, saying a dispute arose regarding changes to seating arrangements arising from COVID-19 restrictions.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant offer the complainant and her family a $120 voucher. It was also agreed that the complainant would review the restaurant’s assistance animal policy and provide feedback. The complainant agreed to provide the restaurant with a one-hour training session on assistance animals at a cost of $440.
 

The complainant has an assistance animal and sought to make a booking at the respondent hotel. He alleged the hotel told him his assistance animal would not be able to stay in his room. He claimed the hotel declined to consider evidence that his dog is an assistance animal.

On being notified of the complaint, the hotel indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $5000 and offer him one free night’s accommodation in the hotel.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder and was a student at the respondent vocational training organisation. He alleged he was required to undertake a video assessment for a subject, which he was unable to do because of his disability.

The training organisation said that the training package and the standards imposed on it by the third-party regulator, required the respondent to be satisfied of a student's competency to meet the course requirements. In light of this, the respondent determined that the only way to meet its obligations was to have an assessor observe the student doing the assessment task. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would engage with the respondent’s disability support unit to explore adjustments that could be provided to enable the complainant to safely undertake the video assessment. The respondent also undertook to assess whether an assessor could safely be sent to the complainant’s workplace and to provide the complainant with a single contact point moving forward.