Conciliation Register

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 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 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 63 years of age and underwent surgery for carpel tunnel syndrome. She said she provided the respondent government agency with medical certificates deeming her fit to return to work in a limited capacity and alleged the agency informed her no suitable duties were available and she should remain home until further notice. The complainant alleged a younger male who underwent a similar procedure was offered duties on his return. 

The agency said the decision not to offer the complainant duties was based on strong and reasonable concerns there were no duties the complainant could perform without exacerbating her injury. The agency claimed the colleague referred to in the complaint underwent a different type of procedure and their situations were not comparable.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the agency to develop a handbook for the coordinators who manage staff returning to work to ensure their practice is consistent with policy related to workers compensation and injury management. The agency also agreed to pay the complainant $5,000.

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 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 70 years of age and has a chronic eye condition. He alleged that following a restructure, the Chairman of the company told him his role as Chief Financial Officer would be made redundant because of his age and vision impairment and to allow the company to recruit someone younger. He alleged he was pressured for his redundancy to be announced as his retirement even though he did not wish to retire.

The respondents denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages and buy back his shares in the company, which were worth approximately $41,000.

The complainant is 71 years of age and a long-term customer of the respondent bank. He made enquiries about obtaining a home-loan to enable him to buy an investment property which may later become his home. He alleged he was told it was the bank’s policy not to offer home loans to persons over 70 years of age without taking into account his ability to repay the loan. The complainant received a superannuation pension and owned significant assets.

 

The bank claimed that the complainant was ineligible to proceed with a loan application due to his income and the potential for the loan to place him into financial hardship. The bank claimed that providing a loan to the complainant would not be considered responsible lending.  

The complaint was resolved. The bank acknowledged that its staff did not ask for, or collect, all relevant information before making an assessment about the complainant's request and apologised for his experience. The bank undertook to offer the relevant staff member additional training and to ensure that all staff are aware of their obligations when assessing loan applications. It was also agreed that the branch manager would contact the complainant directly to discuss the information needed to ensure a thorough assessment of his request.