Conciliation Register

The complainant experiences impaired mobility due to knee injuries and sometimes uses a wheelchair. She alleged pools operated by the respondent council and toilet facilities at a recreational venue operated by the same council were not accessible. She also alleged the council’s practice of charging carers an entry fee to the pools was discriminatory.

The council advised a hoist was installed to provide access for people with disability to its pools in accordance with relevant disability standards. The council said staff were available to provide assistance when needed. The council confirmed the bathroom facilities referred to in the complaint do not comply with the requirements of disability standards, but noted they were built before the standard came into force. The council noted accessible toilet facilities are available at a museum near the recreational venue referred to in the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that council waive pool entry fees for carers accompanying people with disability and purchase portable steps to deliver alternative access to one of its pools. The council also undertook to investigate, and where appropriate, apply for relevant funding, to provide platform lifts to facilitate pool access and to upgrade the toilet facilities referred to in the complaint to ensure compliance with relevant disability standards.

 

The complainant was employed by the respondent cleaning and maintenance service to perform pool and yard maintenance duties in a remote location. She informed the company she was pregnant because she was experiencing severe morning sickness and was concerned at the potential risk of heavy lifting and use of chemicals. The company allowed her to perform administrative duties during her pregnancy in accordance with medical advice that she was fit to perform ‘light duties’. The complainant alleged that the company told her that, before she could return to work after maternity leave, she would need to obtain medical clearance from practitioners in the state’s capital city, participate in a work conditioning program and undertake a fitness for duty assessment two or three months later. The complainant claimed she had no option but to resign.

The company claimed the information provided by the complainant regarding her fitness to return to work was insufficient given she had been performing light duties for some time and had been absent for 60 days in the 12-month period before beginning maternity leave. The company claimed a medical assessment recommended the complainant undertake a work conditioning program because she had poor upper-limb function, trunk strength, lifting ability and cardiovascular fitness. The company denied requiring the complainant to access services or professionals in the capital city. The company claimed she was unable to perform the inherent requirements of her role and no adjustments could be provided to address this.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $9,000, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The company also agreed to review its policies to better address issues that may arise concerning pregnant workers in remote locations and to deliver training on equal employment opportunity to management and leadership representatives in the complainant’s work location.

The complainant has a physical disability and uses a scooter for mobility. She purchased a property at a residential village for persons over 50 years of age. She alleged a designated parking by was created for her scooter. She alleged she was unable to access the village pool because the distance from the parking bay to the pool was too great for her to walk. 

On being advised of the complaint, the property group that operates the residential village indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the property group write to the complainant apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint and giving her permission to park her scooter on the pool deck until a permanent parking pay and handrail can be constructed. The property group also agreed to provide signage indicating that the current parking bay can be used by all scooters.

The complainant has mild schizophrenia and applied for travel insurance with the respondent insurer. She alleged the insurer offered her a policy with an exclusion for schizophrenia, despite her disability being well managed and never requiring hospitalisation. The complainant applied for a review of the decision and provided the insurer with additional information. She alleged the insurer then offered her a policy with exclusions for schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, reflux and vitamin deficiency.

On being notified of the complaint, the insurer agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer revised its underwriting risk rating criteria and as a result, offered the complainant a policy with no exclusions at no additional cost. The insurer also reviewed its assessment processes for applications requiring additional consideration due to the disclosure of complex medical conditions or disability.

The complainant’s 17-year-old daughter has auditory processing disorder, memory problems, learning difficulties and anxiety. The complainant’s daughter attended the respondent public high school but was often absent due to her disability. The complainant claimed the school gave her daughter poor marks in some subjects due to low attendance, but took no steps to ascertain the reason for the absences or to accommodate her disability. The complainant claimed that her daughter was therefore not eligible to complete her final year of school exams.

The school claimed it accommodated the complainant’s daughter’s disability in line with recommendations by her audiologist and psychologist. The school claimed it tried to meet with the complainant and her daughter to discuss the daughter’s non-attendance, but this did not occur.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school review its policies regarding support for students with disability, deliver training to wellbeing officers regarding appropriate responses to identified mental health issues and refer the complainant’s daughter to a career advisor at a nearby high school. The school also agreed to write to the complainant acknowledging her dissatisfaction with the support her daughter received while at the school and pay her $3,000 towards psychological support for her daughter.

The complainant’s son is legally blind and attended the respondent public primary school. She alleged she had asked the school to install Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSIs) at the top and bottom of stairs and other relevant points to enable her son to navigate the environment independently and safely. She alleged the school failed to do this. She also alleged her son was unable to participate in sporting activities because the school did not use balls with bells or other auditory signals.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school take steps to improve accessibility to the school’s premises, to invite a blindness agency to deliver an information session at the school each year and to encourage teachers to discuss accommodation of students with disability with their students. The school also agreed to ensure that balls with bells would be used when ball sports were to be played and to potentially introduce goal ball as a sport. The school and the complainant agreed to liaise directly to discuss the inclusion of the complainant’s son in an upcoming school camp as well as ongoing support needs and progress. 

The complainant has osteogenesis imperfecta (also known as ‘brittle-bone disease’). She approached the respondent government department seeking clearance to teach at a public school after completing a teaching qualification. She alleged the department offered her limited permission to teach because of her disability. 

The department claimed it had an obligation to ensure potential staff were able to teach and supervise children in a safe manner and that it was appropriate to offer the complainant limited clearance to teach until the effects of her disability were better understood.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department provide the complainant with full clearance to teach, amend her record accordingly and pay her $16,500.

The complainant had a knee injury which made it difficult for her to walk or climb stairs. She sought temporary accommodation with the respondent domestic violence support service and was offered an upstairs room. She claimed her request for ground floor accommodation in the communal living area to accommodate her disability was refused.

The domestic violence support service said it was not informed of the complainant’s disability through the intake process. The service said once it was made aware of her disability, it offered her suitable accommodation at another location.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the domestic violence support service to review its intake process and deliver disability awareness training to staff. The service also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for her negative experience.

The complainant’s sons have language difficulties and anxiety and his father-in-law, who resides with the family, has Parkinson’s disease and dementia. The complainant worked at the respondent bank was was undertaking a secondment in a senior consultant role. He alleged his team leader told him the bank did not want him to continue in the secondment because of his family responsibilities.

The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader met with him to discuss ongoing concerns about his stress levels. The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader was aiming to remove stress from the complainant’s work to enable him to focus on his family situation. The bank said its intention was to support the complainant and not to discriminate against him.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement to end the employment relationship. The bank agreed to pay the complainant $45,000 less applicable tax and inclusive of all statutory entitlements. The bank also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service and a contact point for prospective employers. 

The complainant has a vision impairment and was employed by the respondent community organisation. She alleged the organisation did not provide adjustments to accommodate her disability, including a larger computer screen. She also alleged she was required to access the organisation’s server via her mobile phone or library computers for several months. She claimed the requirement to access the organisation’s server without access to a larger monitor had a negative impact on her health and she felt she had no option but to resign.

The community organisation claimed the complainant did not request adjustments prior to her engagement or in writing after her engagement. The organisation claimed if made certain adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s disability and acknowledged there had been supplier delays in the delivery of computer equipment requested to accommodate the complainant’s disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation pay the complainant $10,000 as compensation for pain and suffering and write to her acknowledging the difficulties she experienced due to supplier delays in the delivery of certain computer equipment. The organisation also undertook to revise its policies regarding requests for workplace adjustments to ensure oral requests for adjustment were appropriately considered and acted on. Additionally, the organisation agreed to deliver disability awareness training to management staff.

The complainant’s son has depression, which can manifest as self-harming behaviour and suicidal ideation. He attended Year 10 at the respondent private school. The complainant alleged that the school excluded her son when made aware of his disability, but allowed him to return following provision of a medical certificate. The complainant’s son had some time off school following an incident on school premises that could have been a suicide attempt. The complainant alleges that, on his return, the school again excluded her son and required him to consult a psychiatrist and take medication, contrary to his treating doctor’s advice.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant’s son could return to school following the provision of a letter from his general practitioner addressing specific areas of concern held by the school. The school agreed to write to the complainant’s son apologising for the distress he experienced, give him access to an after-school program to help him catch up on his work and pay him $7,500 to assist with treatment costs and in compensation for the distress he experienced. The school also advised it had reviewed its policies and procedures in response to the complaint.

The complainant took time off work as a nurse at the respondent medical practice to undertake treatment for cancer. She alleged that, during her absence, the medical practice hired a nurse to perform her role, changed her working days and reduced her working hours without consulting her. 

The medical practice claimed that, as a casual employee, the complainant had no entitlement to ongoing employment or to sick leave and therefore, the medical practice had no obligation to keep the job open for the complainant. The medical practice noted that the complainant’s return date was uncertain due to the nature of her medical treatment and that members of the practice required nurse support while she was absent. The medical practice expressed regret for the anger the complainant felt about the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant was no longer employed with the medical practice at the time of conciliation. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the medical practice pay the complainant $10,000 as an eligible termination payment and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant is blind and resides in government public housing. She claimed she had made an arrangement with her case worker to ensure correspondence would be sent to her in an email or as an accessible attachment to an email. The complainant claimed the arrangement ceased when a new case worker took over management of her tenancy and she was therefore no longer able to read correspondence.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local client services team would provide the complainant with all correspondence in an accessible format and create a system alert notifying any future case worker of her requirements.

The complainant is a leg amputee and uses a wheelchair. He alleged there were no wheelchair accessible toilet facilities at the respondent hotel, where he was drinking with friends.

On being notified of the complaint, the hotel indicated a willingness to participate in the Commission's conciliation process to attempt resolution of the matter.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel display a mobility map on the premises, which would include the location of accessible toilet facilities near the hotel. The hotel undertook to liaise with a nearby business regarding the use of its accessible toilet facilities by hotel patrons requiring such facilities. The hotel also agreed to train its staff regarding the use of accessible toilet facilities by patrons with disability and the location of nearby accessible toilet facilities

The complainant worked in a maintenance role for the respondent utilities corporation. He developed a mild hearing impairment which required the use of hearing aids and was placed on light duties. The complainant claimed the company required him to undergo a number of driving tests and medical assessments following concerns raised by colleagues. He claimed that, based on the results, the company imputed a cognitive disability to him and questioned his ability to perform the role, despite his neurologist declaring him fit for duties.

The company claimed that driving tests and medical assessments indicated the complainant was unable to safely operate heavy vehicles due to his disability. The company said the ability to operate heavy vehicles was an inherent requirement of the complainant’s role. The company noted the complainant subsequently lost his licence to drive heavy vehicles.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $30,000 ex-gratia and $2,000 in lieu of notice and in outstanding benefits. The company also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service.