Conciliation Register

The complainant alleged that the respondent not-for-profit organisation denied her request to work from home during school holidays to enable her to care for her three children. She alleged she was told she would not be able to meet the requirements of her role while looking after her children.

The organisation claimed the complainant’s role required her to be present in the office.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The organisation agreed to pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

The complainant was employed as a senior lecturer at the respondent university. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by staring at her body, touching her neck and hands, and asking personal questions. She also alleged her manager bullied her, undermined her and was hostile to her in meetings because of her sex. She claimed the university failed to respond appropriately to her complaints regarding the alleged conduct.

The university denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $190,000 as general damages, write to her apologising for the hurt and distress she experienced and write to her outlining the outcome of its review into relevant policies and processes.

The complainant alleged that a manager sexually harassed her by having unconsensual sex with her after a work Christmas party at his home when she was intoxicated and unconscious. The complainant was no longer employed with the company at the time the complaint was lodged.

The company claimed it could not be held liable for any alleged sexual harassment. The company said it had communicated with staff concerning conduct expectations prior to the party, food had been served at the event and the alleged sexual harassment occurred after the party ended and at a different location.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $55,000, review relevant policies and offer the complainant an opportunity to comment, commission appropriately qualified external trainers to deliver workplace behaviour training to managers, and commission trauma-informed training on sexual harassment for human resources staff.

The complainant has a 6 month old exclusively breastfed baby and applied to the respondent educational body to sit a tertiary level admissions test. She alleged she was informed two days before the exam that she would not be permitted to breastfeed her baby on demand but rather, during the lunch break. The complainant noted this would mean she would not have a lunch break like others sitting the exam.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in a conciliation process to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent write to the complainant apologising for her experience and offer a refund for the cost of the exam. The respondent also undertook to review its processes and training to improve information provided to breastfeeding people sitting exams and consider accommodating the needs of breastfeeding people in the context of existing adjustment guidelines.

The complainant worked for the respondent real estate agency. She alleged that after being informed she was pregnant, colleagues made negative comments, including "you are pregnant and useless, go home". She claimed the agency denied her request to work from home for part of the day at her doctor’s recommendation even though other staff were permitted to work from home. The complainant alleged that after she raised concerns about the above, the agency removed her from a work-related chat group, instructed her colleagues not to nominate her as a secondary contact when absent and refused to attempt to resolve an underpayment concern.

The agency said it was unable to substantiate the alleged comments. The agency said it understood the complainant’s request to be for part-day paid personal leave rather than working from home and this was provided. The agency said it removed the complainant from the chat group and instructed colleagues not to name her as a secondary contact because she had commenced parental leave. The agency denied allegations of underpayment.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the agency agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages in two instalments and provide her with a statement of service. The agency agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for any comments or actions that she may have perceived as hurtful, insensitive or harmful.

The complainant is an Aboriginal man. He was employed by the respondent health service as a Fire Safety and Security Officer. The complainant claimed the health service discriminated against him because of his race including by not automatically converting his part-time role to a full-time role when this became available until he raised the issue with his union, and ignoring his submissions in response to performance issues raised with him by the health service. He alleged his manager slapped him on the bottom when she walked past him on a number of occasions. He claimed he reported this conduct to the health service but no action was taken other than to offer him a meeting with the manager to ‘clear the air’. 

The health service denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the health service write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to his complaint, pay him $40,000 and update its training for managers on responding to allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The complainant identifies as lesbian and was employed with the respondent electrical infrastructure business as an apprentice electrician. She alleged that two colleagues referred to her as ‘lesbo’, ‘pole cat’, ‘dick tease’ and ‘a waste of a good mouth’ with reference to her sexual orientation. She also alleged the same colleagues touched and leaned against her and another colleague referred to her as a ‘f****ing slut’ behind her back. She alleged that her colleagues isolated her after she made a complaint about the alleged conduct and she was told male colleagues were making comments of a sexual nature about her. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

The respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $80,000.

The complainant alleged that during her employment with the respondent restaurant her manager slapped her on her bottom in front of customers and that on one occasion, after other staff had gone home, he said 'thank you so much dear' and kissed her on her cheek. She claimed that in response to her raising concerns about this conduct her boss said the manager also hugged and kissed other staff and they had no concerns about this.

The restaurant denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant $20,000.

The complainant is a single mother of a school-aged child and worked in a management role with the respondent company. The company required staff in management to work on both days on weekends. The complainant said she informed the company she would be unable to work on both days on the weekend because of her family responsibilities. She said that, after initially accommodating her needs, the company later required her to work both days on weekends.

The company said all managers were required to work both days on weekends to meet operational needs and claimed this policy was developed in consultation with managers. The company said it encouraged the complainant to consider whether she could make arrangements for the care of her child or consider a different position in the company. The company said it was left with no option but to terminate the complainant’s employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $25,000 as general damages.

The complainant (C) is a national LGBTIQ+ organisation whose purpose is to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTIQ+ people in Australia and their families and children. C alleged that the first respondent statutory officeholder decided not to recommend that topics relating to gender identity, innate variations of sex characteristics and sexual orientation be included in the 2021 Census. C also alleged that the second respondent Ministerial office advised the Governor-General in line with that recommendation and thus it took effect. C alleged that the first respondent prepared the 2021 Census form that: framed the question on sex narrowly with reference to male, female or ‘non-binary sex’ only; framed the question on ancestry in the gender-specific and heteronormative terms of ‘father’ and ‘mother’ or otherwise seeking the country of birth of only one parent; and excluded those people who had selected 'non-binary sex' or who are trans men from the option to answer whether they had ever given birth to a child. The C alleged sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex discrimination and accessory liability. 

The respondents (Rs) submitted that the C's concerns about the decision relating to what topics to be included in the 2021 Census related to the automatic operation of the relevant legislation and/or the legislative process and thus they do not come within the Commission's complaint handling jurisdiction. Rs also submitted that the framing of the questions in the 2021 Census dealing with sex and ancestry was lawful for the purpose of the SDA, and also reasonable in the circumstances.

Both parties indicated their willingness to participate in an in-person conciliation conference to try to resolve the complaint, and reached settlement, terms of which included: 

• The federal government agency headed by the first respondent (the Agency) agreed to issue the C with a statement of regret, and to publish it on its website, acknowledging the C's complaint to the Commission; recognising the LGBITQ+ people's hurt, stress, anguish and other negative reactions to some 2021 Census questions; and noting its awareness that the framing of some 2021 Census questions and certain language used in those questions was seen or experienced by some as hurtful, confusing, demeaning and discriminatory. 
• The public statement of regret issued by the Agency was also to note the review and update that it has carried out since the 2021 Census on the Agency's Standard for Sex, Gender, Variations of Sex Characteristics and Sexual Orientation Variables in partnership with LGBTIQ+ community representatives; and to note the consultation process that the Agency expanded to maximise community participation.
• The Agency committed to establish an LGBTIQ+ Expert Advisory Committee for the 2026 Census to provide guidance and input into the Census topic review and framing of Census questions, and the way that Census data is processed and disseminated. 
• The relevant Minister agrees to meet with the Expert Advisory Committee in relation to his responsibilities with topics for the 2026 Census. 

The complainant is gay. She was employed for three months with the respondent sports governing body. The complainant alleged that a colleague made comments about gay women which made her uncomfortable in the workplace including that playing the sport “will make you gay”, that gay women are more likely to have psychological issues and display predatory behaviours and that he would prefer that his children not be gay. The complainant also alleged another colleague made a comment of a sexual nature about a female celebrity and told her he did not want to be in a relationship because he “liked lots of girls”, which make the complainant uncomfortable. The complainant said she resigned and reported her concerns internally.

On being advised of the complaint the sport governing body indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the sport governing body pay the complainant approximately $10,000 less applicable tax (the equivalent of 8 weeks' pay) and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant was a student of the respondent vocational training body. She alleged the training body informed her that due to her pregnancy, she would not be permitted to participate in a module with potentially distressing content, and that she could not complete three mandatory practical components of the course until six months post-partum. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the training body to change its policy to enable pregnant students to participate in the module that contained potentially distressing content subject to students signing a waiver confirming their awareness of the subject matter and potential for distress. The training body also undertook that while pregnant students would not be able to complete practical modules of the course in their last trimester for safety reasons, their ability to do so post-partum would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The complainant works as a software support officer at the respondent company. He said that his son has a learning disability, asthma and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and needs a lot of one-to-one support and tuition. He alleged the company denied his request for a small reduction in working hours a few days a week to enable him to attend appointments and that a manager told him 'this is not a child care' and that it would affect the productivity of the team. He alleged he was singled out and required to take breaks at specific times.

The company said the complainant’s request could not be accommodated due to operational requirements. The company denied the alleged comment and said that all staff were required to take breaks for health and safety reasons.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant work from home for a set period. As the complainant would not need to travel to and from work, he would be able to take his son to appointments without changes to his working hours.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a driver for a goods transport company. She alleged that when her partner told the operations manager that she was pregnant, he said words to the effect that "we can't have pregnant chicks working here" and she was not offered any more work.

The company denied that the alleged statement was made and said the complainant was not offered work because there was no work available that met her requirements with regard to hours of work and type of vehicle used.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,650 as an Employee Termination Payment and develop a workplace anti-discrimination policy.