Conciliation Register

The complainant had been employed as a casual food and beverage attendant at the respondent hotel for two months and said she was offered a regular pattern of shifts. She claimed that after she was hospitalised and took time off work because of  abdominal pains related to her pregnancy, the hotel allocated her shifts to a colleague and offered her no further work.

The hotel claimed it was unaware that the complainant’s medical issues were related to a pregnancy. The hotel noted that the complainant was a casual employee and as such had no guarantee of regular shifts or ongoing work.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $2,250 ex-gratia.

The complainant has a learning disability, anxiety and depression and attended the respondent university. He claimed the university failed to provide him with reasonable adjustments in a timely manner and to communicate effectively with him about his disability related needs. He claimed this resulted in an aggravation of his disability and a delay in the completion of his degree.

The university claimed it provided the complainant with adjustments to accommodate his disability but confirmed a request for adjustment in a specific subject was declined. The university noted the complainant approached a number of staff members about his request, causing confusion about responsibility for decision-making. The university noted it ultimately offered the complainant an alternative assessment and he passed the subject.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $7,000 in compensation for pain and suffering and write to him acknowledging and expressing regret for miscommunication about provision of adjustments and for any resulting negative impact. The university also agreed to revise relevant policies and procedures with a focus on improving communication between the university and students with disability.

The complainant’s two-and-a-half year old daughter has Autism Spectrum Disorder. The complainant sought to enrol her daughter in kindergarten at the respondent private school and visited the school for an interview to discuss her daughter’s needs and to undertake a tour of the kindergarten facilities. The complainant claimed she understood her daughter’s enrolment was guaranteed but was later advised no place was available for her daughter.

The school denied that the complainant’s daughter’s disability was a factor in the decision to offer her a place at its kindergarten. Despite this, the school indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and write to her acknowledging that the events giving rise to the complaint could have been handled differently and expressing sincere regret for the distress caused to the family. The school also advised that the learnings from the complaint process would inform the next review of its enrolment policy and its future communication with parents.

The complainant was employed as Marketing manager with the respondent entertainment company and acted in the role of Sales and Marketing Director for a year. She claimed the Divisional Head advised her there would be a restructure and her role would be expanded. The complainant said about a month later she was hospitalised and took time off after developing a stress-related heart condition. At this time, she also advised the company that she has a kidney condition that will require dialysis in the future. The complainant’s role was subsequently made redundant. She claimed the company re-advertised her role a few weeks later.

The company confirmed the complainant accessed approved personal leave and claimed it accommodated her disability by, for example, allowing her to work from home. The company claimed the complainant’s role was made redundant for legitimate operational reasons. The company said that, while the advertised role had the same title as the complainant’s role, the requirements of the role were different.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $60,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

 

The complainant is unable to drive due to a vision impairment, but is able to travel independently on public transport. She made enquiries about a training role with the respondent community organisation about the stated requirement for a driver’s licence. The complainant claimed a staff member told her she would be unable to apply for the position because the successful applicant would have to travel to a number of locations to deliver training. 

The community organisation advised that the successful applicant was required to keep an intensive training schedule across a number of locations in a capital city. The organisation noted that many of the locations were not accessible by public transport. The organisation argued that the successful applicant would need to drive between training locations to meet the requirements of the training schedule. The organisation acknowledged that the complainant’s enquiry could have been responded to more comprehensively. The organisation advised it counselled the staff member involved and delivered training to staff dealing with recruitment enquiries. The organisation said it also delivered training to managers on the organisation’s commitment to the recruitment of persons with disability and the provision of reasonable adjustment.

The complaint was resolved. In addition to the steps already taken, the community organisation  wrote to the complainant expressing regret about the response she received to her enquiry and thanking her for her feedback and the opportunity it provided to improve the organisation’s recruitment processes.

The complainant’s son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and had attended the respondent private primary school. The complainant alleged the school failed to provide adjustments to accommodate her son’s disability, restricted his attendance and time in the playground and failed to develop a behaviour support plan. The complainant claimed the school did not respond appropriately when her son was bullied because of his disability and punished her son harshly for behaviour associated with his disability. The complainant had removed her son from the school before lodging the complaint.

On being advised of the complaint, the school agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the School pay the complainant $5,000 and write to the complainant’s son apologising for any distress or hurt he experienced while attending the school, reassuring him that the complaint was taken seriously and advising him that new procedures have been put in place to support all students in the future. The school provided the complainant with a copy of a new case management policy for students with disability developed in response to the complaint.

The complainant's 15-year-old son has anxiety and depression and was enrolled at the respondent private high school. She claimed that, despite meeting with multiple teachers, the school had no consistent approach to accommodating her son’s disability. She claimed that, as a result, her son became increasingly anxious and refused to attend school.

On being advised of the complaint, the school agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The school invited the complainant to participate in a review of its policies and processes with respect to accommodating students with disability. The school invited the complainant’s son to meet with the principal to enable the principal to apologise for the events giving rise to the complaint and encourage him to return to school. The school agreed to pay the complainant $1,000 in compensation for the time her son was unable to attend school. The school undertook to send a communication to parents advising them of supports available for students with disability and of points of contact at the school. Finally, the school agreed to deliver training to staff regarding accommodation of students with disability and effective communication with parents.

 

The complainant’s nine-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy and associated mobility issues, including muscle weakness, reduced balance and use of a wheelchair for mobility. The two live in public housing. The complainant claimed that splashing from the shower caused the floor to become wet and slippery, and therefore unsafe, when she assisted her daughter with showering and toileting. She claimed the relevant department took over three years to make the modifications required to make the bathroom safe and accessible for their use.

The department acknowledged there had been a delay in making the modifications required. The department noted extensive work was done in accordance with recommendations by occupational therapists, there was extensive communication with the complainant about the works, there were some difficulties in accessing the property and arrangements were made for alternative accommodation for some of the time.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint, offer a rent-free period of 58 weeks and pay her $980 in compensation for economic loss. The department also agreed to consider the complainant’s suggestions about how to avoid similar difficulties in the future.

The complainant worked as a general hand with the respondent catering company on a casual basis. She had previously acquired a psychological injury in the course of her work. The complainant said the company lost the tender to provide catering at her worksite. She claimed the company placed all employees at the worksite except her in a casual pool for potential future offers of work. She claimed the company told her she would not be added to the casual pool because of her psychological injury.

The company claimed discussions of opportunities for casual work were ongoing. The company claimed it assumed the complainant had found other work because she stopped contacting the company.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company  conduct remedial training on equal employment opportunity, anti-discrimination and cultural inclusion for human resources staff.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal trained to alleviate the effects of his anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He claimed a security guard denied him access to the respondent hotel, where he was attending a friend’s farewell celebration, because of his assistance animal despite being provided with evidence of the animal's accreditation.

The hotel confirmed the security guard asked the complainant to wait outside while he checked with hotel management whether he was allowed to enter with his assistance animal. The hotel denied not allowing the complainant to enter its premises with his assistance animal. The hotel claimed when the security guard advised the complainant he could enter the hotel, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with what had occurred and chose to leave.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel write to the complainant apologising for the incident and undertaking to ensure the same thing does not happen to him or anyone accompanied by an assistance animal in the future. The hotel undertook to develop an information sheet on its obligations with respect to persons with disability accompanied by an assistance animal in consultation with a disability peak body and to distribute the information sheet to hotel and security personnel at a number of venues owned by the hotel operator. The hotel also undertook to display “Assistance Animals Welcome” signs in prominent places at all venues operated by the hotel operator. Finally, the hotel agreed to pay the complainant $1,500 in compensation for legal costs and donate $2,000 in money and meal vouchers to an agreed assistance animal training organisation. 

 

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and experiences panic attacks. He advised the respondent government agency generally contacts customers by telephone. He said he requested that the agency contact him in writing to accommodate his disability but this did not occur.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency assign a designated officer to the complainant who would communicate with him primarily in writing.

 

The complainant has congenital bilateral dysplasia of the hips, shortening of the right leg, osteoarthritis, high blood pressure and a back condition due to muscle atrophy. He advised the respondent government agency transferred him to a different location following a finding that he had breached its code of conduct. He claimed the new office location required additional travel, resulting in an aggravation of his medical conditions. He claimed the agency refused his request to return to his original workplace despite being provided with medical evidence to support the request.

On being advised of the complaint, the agency agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant return to his original workplace and the agency pay the complainant approximately $3,750 as compensation for pain and suffering and approximately $7,250 in compensation for legal costs. The agency also agreed to re-credit 20 days of personal leave the complainant said he accessed due to the exacerbation of his medical conditions.

The complainant is blind and unable to access printed material. She claimed she found monthly bills from the respondent health monitoring service inaccessible because they were provided to her in print. She claimed her requests for the bills to be provided electronically or in Braille were declined.

The health monitoring service said there was no record of a request by the complainant for bills to be provided in an accessible format. The service provided a sample bill in an electronic format for the complainant to review.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant confirmed she was able to access the sample bill and the health monitoring service agreed to provide her with future bills in this format.

 

The complainant has a back injury and requires support rails to access bathroom facilities. He claimed toilet facilities at the respondent shopping centre were not accessible.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the shopping centre install unisex accessible toilet facilities. In the interim, the shopping centre undertook to install support rails in existing toilet facilities. 
 

The complainant’s son has high-functioning Attention Defficit and Hyperactivity Discorder (ADHD) and dyslexia and attended year 5 at the respondent public primary school. She claimed the school failed to provide her son with support or to make adjustments recommended by his treating specialist because children with ADHD and/or dyslexia do not attract additional funding for the school.

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

The complaint was resolved. The school agreed to place an education support aide in the complainant’s son’s class for two and a half hours per day to assist him and other students. The school also undertook to apply for additional funding to support the complainant’s son for the following two academic years. Additionally, it was agreed that there would be a handover between the complainant’s son’s classroom teachers at the beginning of each academic year. Finally, the school undertook to continue delivery of professional development and training to its staff.