Skip to main content

Conciliation Register

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
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
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
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
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
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.

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

Compensation

Amount $3,500
Year

The complainant is 70 years of age and alleged the respondent bank declined his application for a personal loan because of his age.

The bank claimed the complainant’s loan application was refused because the bank could not be satisfied that he could service the loan.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $3,500 ex-gratia.
 

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

Apology

Compensation

Amount $55,000
Year

The complainant is 68 years of age and had been employed as a storeman at the respondent manufacturing company for 40 years. He had recently developed a back injury and claimed the company did not offer him light duties, retraining or redeployment. He alleged he was repeatedly asked when he would retire, was told "f**k off you're not going to [work for another five years]", and was accused of falling asleep at work. The complainant said the company terminated his employment because if formed the view he could not perform his role because of his injury.

The company claimed it discussed possible retirement with all staff, irrespective of age, for the purposes of succession planning. The company said the complainant fell asleep at work and this presented a health and safety risk to himself and others. The company advised that the complainant was away from work for over 12 months due to his injury and claimed the available medical evidence indicated he would be unable to perform the inherent requirements of his role because of his disability. The company claimed it was unable to identify adjustments or redeployment opportunities that could be offered to the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $55,000 less applicable tax and write to him thanking him for his significant contribution to the company and saying sorry that their recent interactions resulted in him not feeling valued.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation

Amount $10,000
Year

The complainant is 70 years of age and was employed as a store manager with the respondent retailer. She alleged that the regional manager repeatedly told her that she was not working fast enough and said ‘When you think about it, you are no spring chicken.’ 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer pay the complainant $10,000 and the parties end the employment relationship.
 

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

Goods/services/facilities - other (individual)

Year

The complainant is 58 years of age and sought to renew his personal watercraft licence for 10 years. He claimed the respondent government authority informed him that the 10 year licence was only  available to people aged under 44. 

The government authority advised that the complainant was provided with incorrect information and that a 10 year licence was available to him.

The complaint was resolved when the authority arranged for the complainant’s licence to be extended from five years to 10 years.
 

Act Age Discrimination Act
Disability Discrimination Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Associate
Disability
Family responsibilities
Sex
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation
Statement of regret
Statement of service

Amount $2,000
Year

The complainant is a single-parent of two young children and was employed as a car detailer for the respondent car wash service business. She advised she sometimes had to leave work early to collect her children, one of whom has a disability, from school or vacation care if one or both became unwell. She claimed her manager told her he may not be able to keep employing her if she kept leaving work early to collect her children. The complainant claimed the manager told her she was the highest paid detailer in the business, which she interpreted as an insinuation that he could employ someone younger at a cheaper hourly rate. She claimed she was asked to return her uniform and considered she would not be offered further work.

The business advised it employed staff between the ages of 19 and 63 years of age. The business claimed it offered the complainant as much flexibility as practicable in order to accommodate her caring responsibilities. The business noted the complainant was a casual employee and said she remained on the books.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant $2,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the distress she experienced. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Disability Discrimination Act
Sex Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Associate
Disability
Family responsibilities
Sex
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Compensation
Statement of regret
Statement of service

Amount $2,000
Year

The complainant is a single-parent of two young children and was employed as a car detailer for the respondent car wash service business.  She advised she sometimes had to leave work early to collect her children, one of whom has a disability, from school or vacation care if one or both became unwell.  She claimed her manager told her he may not be able to keep employing her if she kept leaving work early to collect her children.  The complainant claimed the manager told her she was the highest paid detailer in the business, which she interpreted as an insinuation that he could employ someone younger at a cheaper hourly rate.  She claimed she was asked to return her uniform and considered she would not be offered further work.

The business advised it employed staff between the ages of 19 and 63 years of age.  The business claimed it offered the complainant as much flexibility as practicable in order to accommodate her caring responsibilities.  The business noted the complainant was a casual employee and said she remained on the books.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant $2,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the distress she experienced.  The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

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

Other

Year

The complainant is 17 years of age. He claimed the respondent property management company required his partner and his father to sign a lease on his behalf because he is under 18 years of age.

On being advised of the complaint, the property management company agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the property management company release the complainant, his father and his partner from the lease before its expiry and waive associated costs. The company also agreed to waive the costs associated with the cessation of the tenancy, including bond and cleaning costs.

Act Age Discrimination Act
Racial Discrimination Act
Grounds Age
Ethnic origin
National origin/extraction
Race
Areas Employment
Outcome details

Apology

Year

The complainant said her son, who is 17 years of age and of Indian origin, had been employed by the respondent leisure centre. The complainant claimed that because of her son’s age and race, his employer did not provide him with adequate medical treatment following a work-related injury.

The leisure centre denied discriminating against the complainant’s son and claimed the same medical treatment is offered to any injured employee.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the leisure centre write to the complainant’s son acknowledging his hurt and distress.