Skip to main content

Conciliation Register

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Revised terms and conditions 
Apology – private 
Training – anti-discrimination/EEO training introduced 

Year

The complainant alleged the respondent employment agency posted an advertisement seeking a ‘young’ security professional. 

The employment agency said a mistake had been made and there had been no intent to exclude any person from applying, or being considered, for the role on the ground of age. The agency undertook to amend the advertisement and deliver anti-discrimination training to new staff. The agency also advised it would contact the complainant to apologise for the incident. 

The complainant considered the action taken by the employment agency in response to being notified of the complaint resolved the matter. 

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation 
Policy change/Change in practice 
Named individual(s) to undertake anti-discrimination/EEO training 
Anti-discrimination/EEO training introduced

Amount $2,000
Year

The complainant is 52 years of age and applied for an overseas position as an English teacher. She alleged the respondent company did not progress her application because it considered she would be unlikely to secure a visa due to her age.

The company claimed the decision not to hire the complainant was based on merit and suitability for the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company commission anti-discrimination training for all its staff, review its policies and procedures and recommend to its parent company that the recruitment process be reviewed in order to avoid age discrimination. The company also agreed to pay the complainant $2,000.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Insurance
Outcome details

Revised terms and conditions 
Policy change/Change in practice

Year

The complainant is 77 years of age and alleged the respondent insurer did not offer him motorbike insurance because of its policy not to insure riders over the age of 75.

The insurer that, while there was a policy of not insuring riders over 75, staff had discretion to offer coverage to older riders. The insurer considered the complainant should have been offered insurance given he had previously held insurance policies and had made no claims under the most recent policy.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer agreed to update its policies and online systems to provide for the automatic acceptance of quotes for riders aged over 75, noting that whether cover was offered would otherwise be subject to the usual underwriting criteria.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount Approximately $24,500
Year

The complainant is 70 years of age and was employed as a coordinator at the respondent childcare provider. She claimed her manager fabricated concerns about her performance and the organisation placed her on a performance management plan. She alleged her manager and the company were pressuring her to resign because of her age.

The company claimed genuine concerns were held about the complainant’s performance and arose from complaints by co-workers about her conduct. The company claimed the performance improvement plan was designed with the aim of helping the complainant improve her performance rather than to pressure her to resign.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.  The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $17,000 in outstanding entitlements on a fortnightly basis, followed by a lump-sum payment of approximately $7,500.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Revised terms and conditions

Year

The complainant is 66 years of age and an alumni of the respondent university. He sought to join a university club and alleges the club offered membership free of cost only to alumni under the age of 35. He said the club did not offer him free membership despite him being retired and on a fixed income.

The university claimed that the offer of free membership to alumni under 35 was not unlawful because it constitutes positive discrimination. The university claimed the differential rate for young alumni was offered to recognise a lack of membership in this age group and to try to increase the youth take up of membership with a view to improving retention.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university waive the club joining fee for the complainant.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Racial Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Race
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Anti discrimination/EEO training introduced 
 

Year

The complainant advised she is a South Sea Islander and her husband and children are Aboriginal. She is 53 years of age and worked as an animal facility officer with the respondent local council. The complainant alleged that, during a conversation, a colleague referred repeatedly to ‘Abos’ and said words to the effect that ‘they are okay when they are not drunk’. She alleged that when seeking to use a computer the complainant was using, the same colleague said ‘It’s not my fault you are so slow cause you are old’. She alleged both conversations took place in front of a supervisor, who took no action. The complainant said she made a complaint to Human Resources, who found allegations of racism to be substantiated but asked her if she would have found it as offensive had her colleague been referring to ‘pommies’. The complainant felt she had no option but to resign.

The council confirmed that an internal investigation found the complainant’s allegations to be substantiated. The council claimed all the recommendations of the investigator’s report were implemented.

The complaint was resolved. The council assured the complainant of its commitment to cultural diversity as reflected in its policies, including its code of conduct. The council undertook to include diversity as a topic in induction training and to include a leaflet on cultural diversity in its new induction pack.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Aids, permits or instructs
Age
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Revised terms and conditions

Year

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focused on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant's ability to meet payments.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Aids, permits or instructs
Age
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Revised terms and conditions

Year

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focussed on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant’s ability to meet payments.
 

Act Age Discrimination Act
Racial Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Race
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Apology
Policy change/Change in practice (external customers) 
Anti discrimination/EEO training introduced 

Year

The complainant is 35 years of age and of Pakistani national origin. He alleged that, during an interview for an engineering role with the respondent company, the interviewer asked him about his nationality and said he would not hire the complainant. The complainant claimed the interviewer said ‘age is an issue’, ‘you will struggle to get a job in this age’ and that he would not fit in with the "young" team.

The company said interviewers ask a range of questions to get to know prospective employees and noted it employs staff of different ages and ethnic and national origins.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the company to review its recruitment process so that interviews are conducted by two staff members. The company also undertook to commission an external provider to deliver training on discrimination and cultural awareness. The interviewer wrote to the complainant to apologise for the events giving rise to the complaint.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Racial Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Race
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Apology
Policy change/Change in practice (external customers) 
Anti discrimination/EEO training introduced 

Year

The complainant is 35 years of age and of Pakistani national origin. He alleged that, during an interview for an engineering role with the respondent company, the interviewer asked him about his nationality and said he would not hire the complainant. The complainant claimed the interviewer said ‘age is an issue’, ‘you will struggle to get a job in this age’ and that he would not fit in with the "young" team.

The company said interviewers ask a range of questions to get to know prospective employees and noted it employs staff of different ages and ethnic and national origins.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the company to review its recruitment process so that interviews are conducted by two staff members. The company also undertook to commission an external provider to deliver training on discrimination and cultural awareness. The interviewer wrote to the complainant to apologise for the events giving rise to the complaint.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Revised terms and conditions

Anti-discrimination/EEO training introduced

Year

The complainant is 73 years of age and was employed in a senior management role by the respondent metallurgy business. She alleged the business manager discriminated against her because of her age and sex, including by commenting that she ‘couldn't work forever’, asking her to nominate a retirement date, referring to her as ‘back office staff’ rather than senior management, excluding her from senior management meetings, refusing to give her a pay rise and relocating her to a different building isolated from head office. 

The company claimed the complainant commented that she would ‘not be around’ in the future and that discussions about possible retirement were conducted as part of succession planning processes. The company said the complainant was relocated due to a business restructure and not because of her age or sex. The company said the complainant was included in meetings relevant to her work and was one of several staff who did not receive a pay rise that year.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant’s team would be renamed to more accurately reflect the work it performed, location of meetings would alternate between the complainant’s workplace and head office and the company would deliver training on equal employment opportunity to all staff. It was also agreed the company would not initiate any retirement discussions with the complainant, she would meet with her business manager weekly to discuss communication and any other concerns and she would receive a pay-rise the following year, pending overall business performance.
 

Act Age Discrimination Act
Disability Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Disability
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Apology 

Year

The complainant is 64 years of age and applied for the role of flying instructor with the respondent aviation company. He advised he was not offered an interview and claimed the successful applicants were both aged in their thirties, were less experienced than himself and had been trained by him. He also said the company informed him it had believed he held a restricted pilot’s licence. He alleged his application was unsuccessful because of his age and because the company believed him to have a disability.

The company claimed the selection process was merit-based and the two successful applicants out-performed the complainant on their ability to contribute to projects and tasks across the company. 

The company's human resources director wrote to the complainant acknowledging that he found the recruitment process 'hurtful and disappointing' and that the company could have done better in drafting more precise and targeted selection criteria for the role. In the letter, the company also acknowledged that the complainant may have been able to elaborate on his own ability to contribute to projects and tasks across the company if interviewed and apologised for any distress that he experienced. The complainant considered that the company’s apology resolved his complaint.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Statement of service

Amount Approximately $40,250
Year

The complainant is 67 years of age and was employed as a site supervisor at the respondent industrial technology company. He claimed that the company was proposing to reallocate one of the key responsibilities of his role to a younger employee. He also claimed his manager continually referred to him as "old man", "old fart" and "geriatric", continually asked him when he intended to retire and suggested that other employees may soon be able to apply for his job. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant his statutory entitlements and approximately $40,250, equivalent to six months’ salary. The company also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Goods, services and facilities
Outcome details

Policy change/Change in practice

Record changed

Year

The complainant is a 56 year old retiree and applied for a credit card with the respondent bank. He claimed the bank declined his application because he does not earn a wage or property income. He claimed the bank told him it did not consider a retiree’s assets or pension income when assessing a credit card application.

The bank confirmed the complainant’s application for a credit card was rejected because he did not meet the income threshold required and concerns were held about his ability to service the credit limit requested. The bank denied age was a factor in its decision and stated strict income requirements were applied to the issuing of credit cards.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the decision to decline the complainant’s application would not be entered in his credit record. The bank also advised it would review its policies and procedures with respect to retiree applications for credit cards.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Victimisation
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $5,000
Year

The complainant is 54 years of age and applied for a position with the respondent company. He said he had extensive experience with the company and claimed he and the company had an agreement that his application would be considered favourably. He alleged his application was ultimately unsuccessful and a younger person was appointed to the role.

The company said it followed the usual recruitment process and appointed applicants of a range of ages to the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $5,000.

Pagination