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The complainant alleged a verbal offer of employment in a senior human resources role with the respondent company was withdrawn once she disclosed she was pregnant.

The company denied making an offer of employment to the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $10,000.

The complainant has a neurological disability affecting her sleep and occasional caring responsibilities for a family member. She was placed at the respondent government agency by the respondent consulting firm. She claimed the agency originally offered to allow her to work from home as needed to accommodate her disability and to work interstate when required by her family responsibilities. She alleged these arrangements were removed without consultation and not replaced with any adjustments to accommodate her disability and family responsibilities. In addition, the complainant alleged that the agency monitored her work and breaks in an invasive manner and threatened to end her employment while she was on sick leave and that ultimately the respondents ended her employment.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant and claimed her contract was terminated due to performance concerns.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages and $5,000 in lieu of notice. The respondents also undertook to develop educational materials for managers and staff to facilitate respectful conversations about employees’ disability and need for adjustments.

The complainant alleged a colleague at the café where she worked sexually harassed her, including by asking her about her sex life, making comments of sexual nature about female customers, touching her breasts and lower back while passing by and exhibiting his arm and abdominal muscles. She claimed she complained about the alleged conduct and helped a colleague complaint about similar conduct. The complainant alleged that following her complaints, her hours were reduced and she was eventually sent an exit survey, despite remaining an employee.

The café denied the allegations of sexual harassment but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the café pay the complainant $25,000.

The complainant was a student at the respondent university and worked as a life guard at an aquatic centre operated by the university. She alleged a colleague sexually harassed her, including by touching parts of her body, kissing her cheeks, slapping her on the bottom and telling her she was “hot” and “pretty”. She said she made a complaint to the university about the alleged conduct and that, following an investigation, the university took steps to separate them in the workplace. The complainant alleges that due to a scheduling error, she was rostered to work with her colleague and felt unsafe to return to work after that time.

The university denied that the alleged conduct constituted sexual harassment. The university claimed it was not vicariously liable for any sexual harassment in the workplace, as it took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct and responded appropriately to reports of its occurrence.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $60,000 as general damages.

The complainant worked as a security supervisor with the respondent hotel. She alleged that from the commencement of her employment, the security director sexually harassed her, including by making comments and sending her messages indicating he had feelings for her, showing up at her home unannounced, and buying her flowers. The complainant said she shared an office with the security director and claimed that he regularly asked her to kiss and hug him and on several occasions attempted to kiss and touch her. She alleged that when she rejected his advances and asked him to stop, he told her he could “get rid of her” anytime he wanted. 

The security director claimed the alleged conduct was consensual and that he and the complainant remained friends. The hotel said it could not be vicariously liable for the alleged conduct. The hotel said it had relevant measures in place to prevent sexual harassment. The hotel said that once it became aware of the alleged conduct, it undertook an investigation which resulted in the termination of the security director’s employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $68,000 as general damages.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a coach at the respondent gym. She alleged a colleague repeatedly touched her on the chest despite multiple requests not to do so. She claimed that when she reported this to her manager, she was told “he can’t help it, he doesn’t understand boundaries”. She claimed her shifts were reduced after her complaint and she was required to work with her colleague on her own despite advising her manager this made her feel uncomfortable. She said her manager ultimately hired someone else to cover her shifts.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $12,500 and notify her once they had undertaken training on sexual harassment. The respondents also apologised to the complainant.

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 was 63 years of age and underwent surgery for carpel tunnel syndrome. She said she provided the respondent government agency with medical certificates deeming her fit to return to work in a limited capacity and alleged the agency informed her no suitable duties were available and she should remain home until further notice. The complainant alleged a younger male who underwent a similar procedure was offered duties on his return. 

The agency said the decision not to offer the complainant duties was based on strong and reasonable concerns there were no duties the complainant could perform without exacerbating her injury. The agency claimed the colleague referred to in the complaint underwent a different type of procedure and their situations were not comparable.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the agency to develop a handbook for the coordinators who manage staff returning to work to ensure their practice is consistent with policy related to workers compensation and injury management. The agency also agreed to pay the complainant $5,000.

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 worked at the respondent consultancy as a change manager. She alleged that at a company function, the CEO sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature, attempting to kiss her, and touching her bottom. The complainant alleged that in response to her complaint about the CEO’s conduct, she was offered some leave and access to five counselling sessions, but there appeared to be no action taken against the CEO. She said she felt she had no option but to resign. She alleged that when her lawyers contacted the company in relation to her allegations and intent to lodge a complaint with the Commission, the company declined to pay her money she was owed and threatened to report her to the police for accessing company systems after the end of her employment.

The company denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $105,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant worked for the respondent hospitality venue. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her and harassed her on the ground of her sex, including by calling her a 'moody bitch', 'stupid slut' and 'whore', pulling up her skirt and slapping her on the bottom, touching her breasts, asking her to go home with him, physically assaulting her and throwing objects at her. The complainant alleged she was actively dissuaded from making a complaint about her manager’s behaviour, including by being told this could destroy her career. The complainant felt she had no option but to resign. 

The venue denied being aware of the complainant’s concerns about her manager until she made a complaint. The venue said it was unable to properly investigate the allegations because it did not receive sufficient information from the complainant before she resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the venue pay the complainant $75,000 and the manager pay her $7,500.

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.