Conciliation Register

The complainant alleged that the respondent not-for-profit organisation denied her request to work from home during school holidays to enable her to care for her three children. She alleged she was told she would not be able to meet the requirements of her role while looking after her children.

The organisation claimed the complainant’s role required her to be present in the office.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The organisation agreed to pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

The complainant has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and a learning disability that affects her written expression. She said the respondent tribunal told her complaints must be made in writing but refused her request for assistance to draft a written complaint. The complainant said she was eventually able to submit her complaint orally but only after a significant time and effort.

The tribunal said the officer the complainant originally spoke with did not know that the tribunal could assist applicants to make complaints.

The complaint was resolved after the tribunal apologised to the complainant for her experience and confirmed that its policy is to allow applicants to make oral complaints.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a coach at the respondent gym. She alleged a colleague repeatedly touched her on the chest despite multiple requests not to do so. She claimed that when she reported this to her manager, she was told “he can’t help it, he doesn’t understand boundaries”. She claimed her shifts were reduced after her complaint and she was required to work with her colleague on her own despite advising her manager this made her feel uncomfortable. She said her manager ultimately hired someone else to cover her shifts.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $12,500 and notify her once they had undertaken training on sexual harassment. The respondents also apologised to the complainant.

The complainant advised she has Autism Spectrum Disorder and a sensory processing disorder. She said she found the sensory environment at the respondent medical practice overwhelming. She claimed the practice was dismissive of her request to accommodate her disability by reducing noise and scents and by avoiding certain colours. 

The practice said it told the complainant it would take steps to accommodate her disability but could not control all aspects of the sensory environment. The practice said its staff would not wear strong scents, but it could not guarantee that all those attending the practice would not wear strong scents. The practice said the colour scheme was chosen to be soothing. The practice said soft music would play in the background in the practice.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking that the practice would raise the issue of scent-free environments with neighbouring businesses and review educational resources on Autism Spectrum Disorder and sensory processing disorders.

The complainant’s adult son has psychosocial disability and she has enduring guardianship and power of attorney documents nominating her as his substitute decision-maker. She alleged the respondent telecommunications company declined to give her access to her son’s account in order to pay his mobile phone bills. The complainant claimed she was directed to attend one of the company’s stores with her son, but was still denied access to her son’s account after doing so.

The telecommunications company said the complainant should be authorised to access her son’s account.

The complaint was resolved after the telecommunications company offered the complainant assistance to enable her to access her son’s account.

The complainant’s son is on the Autism spectrum, has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and a pathological demand avoidance profile. She claimed the respondent public school failed to appropriately accommodate her son’s disability, resulting in school refusal.

On being informed of the complaint, the school denied discriminating against the complainant’s son and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department responsible for the operation of the school pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages and write to her family apologising for their experience. The complainant was offered the opportunity to share her son’s story and experience with the department and participate in a review of access and inclusion for students with disability.

The complainant has a vision impairment and tried to obtain a quote for car insurance from the respondent insurer’s website, but found the website inaccessible. He claimed that when he contacted the insurer, he was informed it did not offer products for people with a vision impairment.

The insurer advised that in response to the complainant’s original complaint to the insurer, it had made some changes to its website and processes to enable potential customers with a vision impairment to more easily obtain a quote for car insurance.

The complainant considered that the steps taken by the insurer to address the concerns he raised resolved his complaint.

The complainant advised she is of South Asian origin and has brown skin. She alleged that while on a flight with the respondent airline, a senior member of the flight crew was unpleasant and rude towards her. She claimed the same crew member was pleasant and polite to non-Asian passengers. She claimed the airline did not respond appropriately to her concerns and did not contact a witness who would corroborate her version of events.

The airline denied discrimination and apologised if customer service during the flight did not meet the complainant’s expectations. The airline said the complainant directed enquiries towards to the crew member at a time where her primary focus was the safe boarding of passengers and her ability to respond to individual requests for assistance was limited. The airline said it serves refreshments to passengers in a particular order and the complainant requested to be provided with refreshments before her turn.

The complaint was resolved. The airline’s CEO wrote to the complainant apologising that the service she received did not meet her expectations. The airline also paid the complainant approximately $450 in compensation.

The complainant is blind and has a guide dog. He claimed he was unable to safely cross a street near his home because although there was a pedestrian safety zone, there was no way for him to detect the location of the zone. He said he had asked his local council on several occasions to address the issue with no result.

The local council advised it was aware of the complainant's concerns but was not in a position to agree to individual requests for the installation of tactile ground surface indicators.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council would upgrade the crossing near the complainant's home and include resurfacing to ensure it is accessible to people who are blind.

The complainant has a neurological condition and uses a wheelchair. She says that prior to booking a stay at the respondent hotel, she was informed the hotel was wheelchair accessible. She alleges when she arrived, she found not all facilities were wheelchair accessible, for example, furniture layout made parts of the room inaccessible, there was a step to access the balcony and the gym and pool facilities were accessed via steps.

The hotel said it understood the complainant to be inquiring about the accessibility of the in-room shower facilities. The hotel claimed offering wheelchair access to all its facilities would impose an unjustifiable hardship on it.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $100, deliver disability awareness training to all staff and update information on booking platforms about the accessibility of hotel rooms and facilities

The complainant alleged that a manager sexually harassed her by having unconsensual sex with her after a work Christmas party at his home when she was intoxicated and unconscious. The complainant was no longer employed with the company at the time the complaint was lodged.

The company claimed it could not be held liable for any alleged sexual harassment. The company said it had communicated with staff concerning conduct expectations prior to the party, food had been served at the event and the alleged sexual harassment occurred after the party ended and at a different location.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $55,000, review relevant policies and offer the complainant an opportunity to comment, commission appropriately qualified external trainers to deliver workplace behaviour training to managers, and commission trauma-informed training on sexual harassment for human resources staff.

The complainant is 83 years of age and holds a credit card with the respondent financial institution. The financial institution offers customers with this credit card free travel insurance. The complainant alleged he was unable to access this benefit because the respondent insurer did not offer travel insurance to people over 80 years of age at the time he sought to travel.

The respondents claimed any discrimination was not unlawful because they relied on statistical and actuarial data on which it was reasonable to rely when assessing eligibility.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer undertook to take the complainant’s concerns into consideration going forward and the financial institution waived its credit card membership fee for twelve months.

The complainant was employed as a senior lecturer at the respondent university. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by staring at her body, touching her neck and hands, and asking personal questions. She also alleged her manager bullied her, undermined her and was hostile to her in meetings because of her sex. She claimed the university failed to respond appropriately to her complaints regarding the alleged conduct.

The university denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $190,000 as general damages, write to her apologising for the hurt and distress she experienced and write to her outlining the outcome of its review into relevant policies and processes.

The complainant has a spinal injury and uses a mobility scooter. He claimed he was unable to leave his home due to the lack of pavement outside his house, given he was told it was illegal to use his scooter on the road. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council modify the pavement on the complainant’s driveway and on the opposite side of the road to enable the complainant to safely access the footpath on the opposite side of the road with his scooter.

The complainant has Autism Spectrum Disorder and says he can feel overwhelmed when given a lot of information. He said he became overwhelmed on his first day of work with the respondent organisation and took the second day as personal leave. He claimed on the third day, he was told he was not the right fit for the organisation and his employment was terminated.

The organisation denied the allegations and said it was not aware of the complainant’s disability. The organisation claimed the complainant’s behaviour was inconsistent with its code of conduct and unrelated to his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant approximately $2,320 as a gesture of goodwill.