Conciliation Register

The complainant is blind and purchased a household appliance from the respondent manufacturer which can be operated via a mobile app. The complainant claimed the app was not accessible to his screen-reading program and he was therefore unable to use the appliance independently.

The manufacturer advised that a new app would be launched later in the same year that would provide increased accessibility to users of assistive technology. The manufacturer invited the complainant to participate in testing of the app to ensure compatibility with screen-reading technology.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the manufacturer pay the complainant $2,000, equivalent to 50% of the cost of his household appliance. The complainant indicated he would use this payment to purchase other products from the manufacturer.

 

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.

 

The complainant has a vision impairment and uses screen-reading software to access the internet. He alleged the respondent bank’s website and internet banking facilities were not fully compatible with his screen-reading software. He said he raised concerns with the bank but considered staff did not understand the needs of clients with a vision impairment.

The bank confirmed that aspects of its website and online banking services were not compatible with the complainant’s screen-reading software. The bank said it was committed to improving staff awareness of the needs of clients with disability and to promoting initiatives for the inclusion of clients with disability.

The complaint was resolved. The bank updated its online banking platform to ensure compatibility with screen-reading software. The bank undertook to deliver further disability awareness training to all of its employees and to review and improve its Disability Action Plan and the resources available to assist clients with disability. The bank also provided the complainant with contact details for its internal accessibility manager should he wish to raise any accessibility concerns in the future and invited him to participate in customer consultations to test the accessibility of new products and services.
 

The complainant advised she asked her son’s preschool to monitor his temperature and provide other adjustments pending investigation of a potential diagnosis. She said the preschool accommodated her request for a time but then advised the adjustments would not be provided unless medical evidence was provided within a specific timeframe. The complainant said the preschool terminated her son’s enrolment before the timeframe expired.

The preschool claimed that, in the absence of relevant medical evidence, it considered it could not meet the complainant’s expectations and provide the necessary care and supervision for all the children under its care.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the preschool pay the complainant approximately $600 in compensation for the expense of finding an alternative preschool placement at short notice and write to her expressing regret for the breakdown in communication and the manner in which her son’s enrolment was terminated. The preschool also agreed to consider the complainant’s views when reviewing its policies and procedures with a view to developing a policy to meet the needs of children not yet definitively diagnosed with a medical condition or other disability.
 

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.

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.