Conciliation Register

The complainant advised she is of South Asian origin and has brown skin. She alleged that while on a flight with the respondent airline, a senior member of the flight crew was unpleasant and rude towards her. She claimed the same crew member was pleasant and polite to non-Asian passengers. She claimed the airline did not respond appropriately to her concerns and did not contact a witness who would corroborate her version of events.

The airline denied discrimination and apologised if customer service during the flight did not meet the complainant’s expectations. The airline said the complainant directed enquiries towards to the crew member at a time where her primary focus was the safe boarding of passengers and her ability to respond to individual requests for assistance was limited. The airline said it serves refreshments to passengers in a particular order and the complainant requested to be provided with refreshments before her turn.

The complaint was resolved. The airline’s CEO wrote to the complainant apologising that the service she received did not meet her expectations. The airline also paid the complainant approximately $450 in compensation.

The complainant is a Russian national and alleged the respondent organisation did not offer her a job, citing sanctions against Russia in place at the time of the recruitment process.

The organisation said the decision was made in compliance with relevant sanctions against Russia and it could be in breach of the law if it hired the complainant. The organisation indicated a willingness to try and resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The parties discussed the sanctions laws and the risk assessment employed by the respondent at the conciliation conference. The complainant was satisfied with the detailed explanation provided by the respondent during conciliation, and was content to close the complaint as resolved on the basis of the information provided. 

The complainant said that a staff member at the respondent supermarket asked him if he was Scottish. He alleged that when he responded that he was from Northern Ireland, the staff member said “Well, that’s unfortunate…”

The supermarket acknowledged the staff member used the word “unfortunate” but denied the comment as alleged by the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket offer the complainant a $500 gift card.

The complainant said she is African and has brown skin. She alleged her manager at the respondent bridal store discriminated against her on the ground of her race, including by treating her disrespectfully, following her around the shop, offering her no shifts and preferring the company of a white colleague of a similar age to the complainant.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant. They said the complainant was advised that ongoing work was subject to an assessment of her performance during two trial shifts. The respondents claimed the complainant did not perform well, including in her use of body language and interactions with customers. The respondents said the successful applicant is from a culturally and ethnically diverse background and had skills and experience superior to those of the complainant.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the shop pay the complainant $1,000 ex-gratia. The shop also undertook to provide clearer information to future applicants about the recruitment process, including that employment is subject to performance during trial shifts and that applicants are welcome to continue to seek job opportunities during the trial period.

The complainant is Ethiopian and has black skin. He was employed as a coordinator with the respondent charity. He claimed that members of the Anglo-Australian leadership team discriminated against him because of his race and colour, including by falsely blaming him for unexpected staff departures, falsely accusing him of being idle, suggesting they were unique people and did not need his leadership, and fabricating allegations of misconduct against him. He claimed they were trying to persuade him to quit. 

The charity denied that any of the alleged conduct arose due to the complainant’s race. The charity claimed tensions arose between the complainant and long-standing staff with a charity background because the complainant had previously been employed in the corporate sector. The charity acknowledged that there was poor communication with staff about the complainant’s role and objectives and robust change-management processes were not in place.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The charity agreed to pay the complainant his statutory entitlements, pay him $22,000 as general damages, write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to his complaint and provide him with a statement of service.

The complainant is from Papua New Guinea and is a person of colour. He was employed as an orderly with the respondent not for profit hospital. The complainant alleged he was subjected to racist slurs and conduct from various staff including a colleague performing mock tribal dances in front of him. The complainant alleged the hospital failed to act on his allegations of racial discrimination. He said his employment was terminated after he damaged a colleague’s car in retaliation for ongoing discriminatory treatment.

The hospital claimed it investigated the complainant’s allegations and found only one claim to be substantiated. The hospital claimed it took appropriate action in response to the complainant’s allegations and that the termination of his employment was appropriate. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant approximately $3,750, equivalent to three weeks’ salary.

The complainant is from Sri Lanka and was employed as a casual team member at the respondent supermarket. He alleged the respondent manager reduced his shifts while employing new Anglo-Saxon/white Australian staff. He also alleged Anglo-Saxon/white Australian staff were allocated less onerous duties, such as selling cigarettes and newspapers and monitoring self-checkout counters as opposed to packing bags or heavy lifting. The complainant further alleged the respondent manager intervened to prevent him from attending a leadership workshop. 

The supermarket claimed that the complainant was not the only employee whose shifts were reduced during the relevant time period. The supermarket said that new staff members were offered more shifts and more varied work tasks because the complainant's own availability was restricted due to his study commitments outside of work. The supermarket said that the complainant was not eligible for the leadership workshop because of his casual employment status.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket offer the complainant a permanent part-time role and train him in, and deploy him to, a broader variety of tasks. 

The complainant is Sikh and Punjabi and wears a turban over his unshorn hair. He alleged the respondent university required him to wear the graduation trencher hat in order to participate in his graduation ceremony. The complainant said he could not fit the trencher over his turban and could not remove the turban for religious and practical reasons. He alleged university staff were rude and disrespectful towards him. He said he was eventually permitted to participate in his graduation ceremony without wearing a trencher hat but was deeply affected by the experience.

The university denied unlawfully discriminating against the complainant. The university advised it took a number of actions in response to the complainant’s allegations, including updating its graduation attire policy to remove the requirement for a trencher to be worn. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university write to the complainant apologising for his experience, pay him $1,500 and offer him counselling sessions up to a value of $3,000 over 24 months. The university also agreed to undertake a consultation process on inclusion of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The complainant purchased some items at an outlet of the respondent charity. He claimed a store attendant asked him where he was from. He alleged that when he informed her he was from China, she made comments to the effect that 'the Chinese are doing lots of nasty things to the world' and 'Chinese are disgusting'. 

The respondent charity said the person involved had a different recollection of the conversation but admitted making comments of a political nature about the Chinese government. The charity said that such comments were contrary to its code of conduct and it therefore terminated the person's engagement as a volunteer with the charity.

The complaint was resolved. The charity apologised to the complainant for the incident and agreed to pay him $1,000 as general damages.

The complainant’s son is an Australian citizen who was born outside Australia. She alleged he was unable to be considered for an internship with the respondent engineering company because he was born outside Australia.

The engineering company said it had obligations to its stakeholders that required strict recruitment processes. However, after considering the issues raised in the complaint, the company said that Australian citizenship would be enough to meet those obligations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would change its recruitment advertisement and process to no longer require applicants to be born in Australia.

The complainant said the respondent called her to offer cleaning services. She alleged that when she asked the price, he said ‘Oh, it’s a bloody Indian’.

The respondent recalled saying the words and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The respondent apologised to the complainant, saying that the comment was not nice, was inappropriate and that he should have known better.

The complainant was a public housing tenant. She alleged she was not offered interpreting services and was therefore unable to raise concerns about her housing, including the behaviour of neighbours.

The relevant government department confirmed there had been difficulties associated with providing the complainant with an interpreter but denied this constituted racial discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be offered a different apartment on a top floor in order to avoid potential problems with neighbours.

 

The complainant is Chinese and was working on a landscaping job at a client's residential address. He claimed the respondent, who is his client's neighbour, approached him and complained about the type of trees being planted and the conversation became heated. The complainant alleged the respondent shouted at him 'Don't let me see you here again! Get f**king out of my country you liar'.

The respondent denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent does not approach or address the complainant and raise any concerns about the landscaping with the complainant’s client.