Conciliation Register

The complainant was engaged in fly-in fly-out work for the respondent mining company. She alleged male team members and team leaders discriminated against her because of her sex and sexually harassed her, including by touching her buttocks, making comments of a sexual nature, and touching each other on the buttocks and penis. The complainant said she did not feel safe in the workplace and resigned because she felt she had no other option.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the mining company pay the complainant $55,000 and write to her apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint.
 

The complainant is a transgender woman. She alleged that a staff member of the respondent supermarket told her she was not a woman and laughed at her for wearing a dress.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket apologise to the complainant for the events giving rise to the complaint and take the opportunity to remind staff of their obligations to treat all customers with dignity and respect.

The complainant worked for a community organisation and alleged that a volunteer stroked her arm and embraced her without her consent at a work event. She said she reported the incident to the organisation and the police. She said the organisation found that the volunteer had breached its Code of Conduct but allowed him to keep working with the organisation. She alleged the matter would have been handled differently if she had been a man.

The community organisation denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The community organisation undertook to educate staff on harassment, review its policies and procedures on responding to reports of harassment, and make clear announcements about any changes to policy or procedure. The organisation also undertook to take steps to improve the conduct of volunteers, including developing selection criteria for volunteers, updating the Code of Conduct for volunteers, properly briefing volunteers on their obligations under the Code of Conduct, and developing a process to addressed alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by volunteers.

The complainant is a woman and alleged the respondent bowls club did not admit women as full members.

The bowls club claimed that its constitution empowered and allowed its male-only committee to deny women full membership to the club.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club accept the Complainant’s application for full membership and an acknowledgement by the club that women are entitled to full membership of the club.
 

The respondent provided accommodation to the complainant, who was a distant relative from overseas. The complainant alleged the respondent sexually harassed her, including by making sexual comments, sending sexual text messages, showing her pornographic images and saying he would not have invited her to come live with him if he knew she would not have sex with him.

On being informed of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages.

The complainant is homosexual and worked for the respondent university. He claimed a colleague told another colleague that the complainant was sending him ‘gross’ photos and that he did not want to work with the complainant because of his sexual orientation. The complainant alleged that the university terminated his contract when he asked not to be allocated shifts with the colleague.

The university did not agree with the complainant’s view of events but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $1,000.

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 became pregnant while undertaking veterinary nursing training with the respondent vocational training provider. She said the training included activities that could pose a risk to her unborn baby and the provider allowed her to commence a new course, though not to withdraw from the training. The complainant said she began a period of maternity leave but was still required to complete coursework and practical requirements.

The vocational training provider denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the vocational training provider pay the complainant $325 as a refund for fees associated with the course and review its student handbook to ensure options available to pregnant students were clarified.

The complainant was employed with the respondent investment firm as a business partner in corporate trust. She alleged that while she was on maternity leave to have her third child, the firm employed someone to permanently fill her role without consulting her or discussing her return to work. She said that when she sought to return to work on a part-time basis, the firm asked her to move to a comparable role as a business consultant. However, the complainant alleged that when she commenced the role it became clear to her the role was a demotion. She claimed the firm was not responsive to her concerns.

The firm denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The firm agreed to pay the complainant $42,000 as general damages, provide her with a reference and provide her with a statement of service. The firm also agreed to develop a strategy to inform staff of the Complainant’s resignation.

The complainant worked for the respondent real estate agency and alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by touching her on the legs and thighs, massaging her shoulders and making sexually explicit comments. She alleged that after she complained about the conduct, the agency victimised her by removing her from two projects as lead agent and performance managing her. She further alleged the agency discriminated against her on the grounds of her sex and pregnancy by offering male agents lead roles and not her. The complainant ceased working for the agency and commenced worker's compensation proceedings. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $168,750. This figure was not inclusive of workers compensation payments already made, but also settled the ongoing worker's compensation dispute.

The complainant alleged the respondent beauty parlour refused to give her a foot massage because she was pregnant.

On being notified of the complaint the beauty parlour indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the beauty parlour update its policies and procedures with respect to services provided to pregnant women, apologise to the complainant for the incident and refund her for the value of a gift certificate.

The complainant worked in an administrative role with the respondent electronics company. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature and talking about his penis, pornography and his sex life. She said the manager’s conduct caused her great distress, requiring her to take time off work and see a psychologist. She alleged the company refused to cover the cost of the psychologist on the basis that it was not her employer. 

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

The complainant left the employment prior to the conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages. 

The complainant was employed as a team leader with the respondent debt solutions business. She said that she took maternity leave and sought to return to work part time. The complainant alleged the company required her to work fulltime in the team leader role or to accept a role with less responsibility and lower pay. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

On being advised of the complaint, the company agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,500.

The complainant says he is homosexual and worked as a dispute officer with the respondent bank. He alleged a colleague made numerous comments about his sexuality and asked him if he was sexually involved with another male colleague. The complainant said he told his colleague that the comments made him uncomfortable and asked him to stop. He alleged his colleague did not take his request seriously, laughed at him and persisted with the comments. The complainant was no longer working at the bank when he made the complaint.

The bank said that following an internal investigation, the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated. The bank noted there was a bantering culture within the complainant’s team.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $2,000 and direct his former colleague to attend one-on-one training on anti-discrimination and leadership behaviours.

The complainant worked as an assistant manager with the respondent retailer. She alleged that her manager sexually harassed her by making comments including ‘if I was younger I would have a crack at you’, asking her to show him her breasts and asking about what type of underwear she wore. She claimed the manager’s behaviour continued despite her lawyer writing to him to ask that he cease the behaviour. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer pay the complainant $500 as compensation for legal costs. The complainant’s former manager agreed to resign and not seek re-employment with the retailer. The complainant remained employed with the retailer.