Conciliation Register

The complainant has anxiety and depression. She is enrolled in a bachelor’s degree with the respondent university and resides in student accommodation. The complainant said that the university had previously accommodated her need to take time off her studies to manage her disability. However, she claimed the university had recently started a ‘show cause’ process due to an unsuccessful year of study which could result in her being excluded from the university for five years. She claimed the university did not give due consideration to medical evidence about the impact of her disability on her studies and resulting need for reasonable adjustment.

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

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to apply the complainant’s late withdrawals retrospectively, so she did not fail subjects. The university agreed to allow the complainant to defer her studies, beyond the standard referral period if required. The university also undertook to prioritise the complainant’s application for accommodation on campus.

The complainant is blind and unable to read information on signs and notification screens. He alleged he was refused sighted-guide assistance at a station to enable him to find and make his way to a platform.

The respondent public transport provider considered that its station staff and conductors offer passengers with disability sufficient assistance to access station facilities, including locating train platforms.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the transport provider to update its website to include information about direct assistance, incorporating feedback from the complainant. The transport provider also undertook to update its app to state that information is subject to change and passengers should approach station staff for the most up-to-date information and for any requests for assistance. Finally, the transport provider agreed to deliver training on direct assistance and disability awareness to frontline staff at the station.

 

The complainant is blind. His employer offered him the opportunity to participate in a postgraduate leadership program delivered by the respondent not-for-profit organisation. The complainant said he informed the organisation of his disability on enrolment and requested adjustments to accommodate his disability, including the provision of reading materials in an accessible format. The complainant alleged the organisation failed to provide him with printed materials in an accessible format and required him to participate in group activities being hosted on an online platform that was not accessible to his screen reading software. He also alleged the organisation refused to allow him to enrol in other core subjects.

The organisation claimed it provided reasonable adjustments to accommodate the Complainant’s disability. The organisation said the online learning platform was a new platform and the complainant did not advise the organisation of any difficulties he was experiencing in accessing the platform unless prompted.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation develop and publish a disability action plan and make a financial contribution to a literature review assessing leadership pathways for people with disability in the Complainant’s profession.

The Complainant’s primary-school-aged son has autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and motor dyspraxia. She said her son had been enrolled in a vacation care program and after-school care program with the respondent out of school hours care provider. The complainant alleged the service declined to enrol her son for future programs because of the cost and other difficulties associated with employing an additional educator to support her son.  

The service said funding and an additional educator was in place to accommodate the Complainant’s son. However, the service noted that the complainant had failed to submit the relevant enrolment forms for her son to attend vacation or after-school care programs. The service also emphasised the importance of the complainant providing notice of her son’s non-attendance, as the service had previously been required to cover the costs of an additional educator because her son had failed to attend without notice.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the Complainant’s son would attend the out of school hours care service and an undertaking by the complainant to notify the service should her son be unable to attend.

The complainant worked as a childcare worker for the respondent childcare centre. She developed a pregnancy-related medical condition and asked for adjustments to accommodate her condition, including reduced hours and weightlifting restrictions. She said these requests were accommodated initially. However, she alleged that after a period of leave, she was informed that on her return, she would be primarily performing kitchen duties, which involved repetitive lifting, bending and standing. She said that when she told the childcare centre that these duties would not be suitable, she was placed on special parental leave. 

The childcare centre denied discriminating against the complainant on the grounds of her pregnancy or disability but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The childcare centre agreed to pay the complainant $35,000 as an eligible termination payment and in compensation for accrued entitlements and to provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant is deaf and worked for the respondent vocational training provider. He alleged that his employer and his manager discriminated against him on the ground of his disability, including by excluding him, failing to install visual fire alarms throughout the premises and failing to install a visual doorbell to the staff room. 

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

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The vocational training provider agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and to re-credit personal leave used by the complainant. The vocational training provider also undertook to meet with the complainant to better understand his concerns and to install visual fire alarms and beacons throughout the building.

The complainant was employed as a store manager with the respondent retailer and injured his collar bone in a non-work-related incident. He said he was deemed unfit for any duties for four weeks and then fit for duties with restrictions on what weight he was able to lift. The complainant alleged the retailer and its owner would not allow him to return to work until he was fit to resume all duties without restriction. He claimed that, as a result, he was required to access three months of personal and annual leave. 

On being advised of the complaint, the retailer and its owner agreed to participate in conciliation. The retailer sold the outlet at which the complainant worked, and he was therefore made redundant prior to the conciliation conference. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer and its owner pay the complainant approximately $10,100 as a contribution to his legal costs and $5,000 as an ex-gratia payment. 

The complainant has a hearing impairment and worked as a nurse with the respondent health service. She advised she experienced significant hearing loss and asked to be moved to a less noisy environment. She alleged the health service told her she would be required to take leave without pay until her situation improved. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be reinstated in her role in a supported capacity. 

The complainant took time off work with the respondent government authority and was diagnosed with motor-neurone disease. He said he contacted the authority to discuss a return to work and asked if the office was wheelchair accessible, given he now used a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged the authority required him to prove his diagnosis even though he had already provided a medical certificate. The complainant thought the authority was trying to delay his return to work because the office was not wheelchair accessible. 

The government authority said the complainant had been away from work for a long time and it therefore had a responsibility to ascertain that he was fit to return to work and perform the inherent requirements of the role. The authority claimed it took all reasonable steps to facilitate the complainant’s return to work. 

 

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the government authority agreed to pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages. 

The complainant has cancer, which required surgery and radiation therapy, and a work-related arm injury. She worked as an administrative officer with the respondent community organisation and alleged the operations manager ignored her, took away her work mobile phone and reduced her tasks. She alleged she was made redundant following a period of leave to undertake cancer treatment. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation re-employ the complainant on the same terms and conditions under which she was previously employed. The organisation undertook to actively pursue redeployment opportunities within the organisation and to meet with the complainant each week to discuss any redeployment opportunities or applications. It was agreed that if the complainant is unable to be redeployed, she will be made redundant. If this occurred, the organisation would pay her approximately $4,600 ex-gratia, $18,240 as a severance payment, $5,700 in lieu of notice and any accrued entitlements.   

The complainant has strabismus (is ‘cross-eyed’) and was employed by a labour-hire company to work at the respondent insurance company. He alleged a colleague would make fun of him and his disability, mimic him to other staff by crossing her eyes and berate him. He said he raised concerns about this conduct with a manager and was told this was his fault because he was not a good fit for the team. The complainant said he felt he had no choice but to leave the employment before the end of his contract. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurance company pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The insurance company also undertook to review its workplace conduct, anti-discrimination and grievance policies. 

The complainant’s 15-year-old son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and can become distressed when in crowded and noisy environments. The complainant claimed he was unable to take his son to a multi-day agricultural show because organisers did not schedule a day with reduced noise and crowds in order to accommodate the needs of people with disability. 

The organisers of the agricultural show claimed it was not possible to set a whole day aside as a ‘quiet day’ because of the short duration of the show and the number of stakeholders involved. Organisers said they had taken several steps to try to accommodate the needs of patrons with disability and to better manage noise and crowds. 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by organisers to: 

* Develop maps showing quieter and louder areas of the venue 

* Offer information on which times or days are least crowded 

* Provide a break-out area for people with disability 

* Update and improve the page on the show’s website dedicated to people with disability.

The complainant was employed as a records officer with the respondent government agency. He had degeneration of his knees and ankles, which made it very difficult for him to deliver mail. After being provided with relevant medical information, the agency removed him from mailroom delivery duties. The complainant alleged that the agency then denied him acting-up opportunities and informed him he would not be considered for promotions in the mailroom, including a supervisor role that did not involve walking. The complainant said he made an internal complaint about the issue but was not satisfied with the outcome. 

The respondent said the complainant was not offered the opportunity to act in the team leader position because the position required work at different locations. The agency said concerns were held that the work could exacerbate the complainant’s disability. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The agency also undertook to meet with the complainant to set out what medical information he may need to provide and to explore future professional opportunities. The agency also undertook to deliver training to management on responding to grievances and communicating effectively with staff.  

The complainant has depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and has an assistance animal. He alleged the respondent accommodation provider denied him accommodation when made aware that he has an assistance dog, citing a ‘no pets’ policy. 

On being advised of the complaint, the accommodation provider indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the accommodation provider write to the complainant apologising for the distress he experienced as a result of the incident, acknowledging that assistance animals are not pets and confirming that people with assistance animals will be offered accommodation in the future. The accommodation provider also undertook to develop a policy to prevent disability discrimination which would include provisions relating to assistance animals. 

The complainant is a lower-leg amputee and uses a prosthesis. He said that in the past, when travelling through an airport, he has advised security staff that his prosthesis may trigger alarms when scanned and officers have scanned him using a handheld wand, conducting visual inspections of metal zippers, buttons and rivets if required. He alleged that when travelling through the respondent airport, the security officer used a handheld wand as usual but then informed him that he would have to inspect his groin area due to anomalies. The complainant said he agreed to the procedure because he did not understand the officer intended to conduct a pat-down search in public. The complainant claimed he found the process very distressing.  

The airport said that passengers must pass through walk-through metal detectors as part of its primary security screening process and that, if an alarm is triggered, must undergo a secondary security screening process involving a handheld metal detector and possibly a pat-down search.  

The complaint was resolved. The airport apologised to the complainant for his experience and undertook to deliver refresher training for security screening staff on improved communication and how to sensitively assist passengers with disability. The airport invited the complainant’s advocate to talk to security screening staff about the experiences of amputees undergoing the security screening process. The airport also agreed to review its website to improve the information available to passengers with disability requiring alternative security screening processes. The airport advised it implemented a ‘Hidden Disabilities lanyard’, a program to make it easier for passengers to discreetly inform security screening staff of their need for an alternative security screening process and to prompt staff to provide such alternatives and sensitive communication. The airport undertook to discuss the issues raised by this complaint at the next meeting of a working group of airports and security contractors, to which it belonged, to discuss learnings and try to ensure consistency across all airports.