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 is 42 years of age and applied for a job with the respondent recruitment agency. He alleged he was asked his age and informed the agency was recruiting applicants aged 20 to 35 years of age. The complainant said he was offered an interview after raising concerns about this practice. He said the same time slot was allocated for three applicants and he left after waiting for over an hour without being invited into an interview room.

The agency said it recruits applicants based on merit and not age, noting it recently hired someone over the age of 60. The agency said it has policies in place to prevent discrimination and these are regularly reviewed.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency compensate the complainant for the cost of preparing for the interview.

The complainant’s son is five years of age and has Attention Deficit Disorder with aspects of Oppositional Defiance Disorder. She alleged her son’s primary school and its principal did not accommodate her son’s disability, singled him out in the classroom, excluded him from classroom activities, and suspended him because of behaviour associated with his disability.

The school denied discriminating against the complainant’s son but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the school’s principal to write to the complainant acknowledging the family’s experience, wishing her son all the best for the future, and affirming the school’s commitment to learn from the issues raised by the complainant.

The complainant alleged the respondent airline refused to carry his assistance animal because relevant documentation provided was not sufficient.

The airline acknowledged the complainant provided relevant documentation relating to the assistance animal’s training and role in alleviating the effects of his disability, but did not provide documentation showing the assistance animal met the standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline refund the complainant for the cost of the booking. 

The complainant has a physical disability. She alleged parking in accessible parking spaces at the respondent hospital was limited to 60 minutes and this did not provide her with sufficient time to use the hospital’s services.

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the hospital to increase parking time limits in accessible parking spaces from one to two hours and to install two additional accessible parking spaces to offer longer-term parking.

The complainant is 58 years of age. She alleged the respondent hostel required her to cancel her booking of a shared room with bunk beds once made aware of her age. The complainant said she advised the hostel she had no disability that would impair her ability to use a bunk bed.

The hostel said it no longer blocked guests from using shared rooms with bunk beds on the basis of age. The hostel advised it instead informs guests of potential risks associated with using bunk beds. The hostel apologised to the complainant for her experience.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hostel compensate the complainant for the cost of her reservation and make a donation to a charity of the complainant’s choosing.

The complainant was employed as a store person at the respondent automotive warehouse and developed osteoarthritis in her knee. She alleged that the warehouse failed to make reasonable adjustments for her while she waited for surgery, subjected her to additional and unnecessary medical assessments, and terminated her employment before the surgery took place.

The warehouse claimed that the additional medical assessments were necessary and reasonable in light of conflicting information about the complainant’s prognosis and her need for ongoing adjustments following the surgery. The warehouse said that providing the requested adjustments would have imposed an unjustifiable hardship, and that the complainant could not perform the inherent requirements of her role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the warehouse pay the complainant $14,000 in compensation for economic loss.

The complainant has a mobility disability and holds a disability parking permit. She worked at a business in the respondent shopping centre. She said the staff car park was located too far for her and that customers with disability parking permits were able to access free parking close to the shopping centre in its customer car park. She alleged her request to access accessible parking free of cost at the customer car park was refused.

The shopping centre denied discriminating against the complainant and agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be able to access free accessible parking at any of its shopping centres in her state. The shopping centre also paid the complainant approximately $2,250 as a refund for parking fees she had incurred.

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 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 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’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.