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’s sex assigned at birth was female but they identify as non-binary/gender-fluid and is attracted to women. The complainant wished to attend an event hosted by the respondent. The website stated that the dress code was formal and that women must wear a dress and men must wear pants. The complainant alleged the respondent declined their request to wear a shirt and pants.

The respondent denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent allow event participants to wear formal attire that reflects their gender identity and advise any participants who had made enquiries about the dress code of this change in policy. The respondent also undertook to remove statements about the requirement for women to wear dresses and men to wear pants from its website and to donate an amount equivalent to the cost of the complainant’s ticket to an agreed charity.

The complainant said he was initially denied entry to a club operated by the respondent company because he was wearing a sleeveless top. He changed into a shirt with sleeves in order to be admitted into the club premises. He said once in the club, he observed many women wearing sleeveless garments. The complainant said the club manager responded to his feedback on the issue by confirming he had not previously met the club’s dress code.

The company advised it operated a number of licenced club premises with unique and independent licencing and trading conditions and independent management. The company said that the club the complainant attended had ceased to operate and therefore amending the dress regulations for that club was obsolete. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company change the dress code requirements for its other clubs.

The complainant alleged the respondent golf club discriminated against her on the basis of sex by removing early morning tee off timeslots for a women's golf competition while not doing so for the equivalent men’s gold competition. She also alleged she was victimised for the raising the issue with the club.

The club said that the decision to remove the early tee off time slots for the women’s golf competition was based on the financial and practical needs of the club. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the golf club reinstate the early morning tee off time slots for the women's competition, and that a review of these time slots would be conducted at the conclusion on the golfing competition season. 

The complainant said that she and her partner attended the respondent night club and they were both wearing flat leather open toed shoes. The complainant said her partner was told he was not allowed to enter because his footwear was inappropriate but she was told ‘you're a girl so your shoes are okay’. She said when she complained that this policy amounted to discrimination she was told she could not enter either.

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

The complaint was resolved. The nightclub and the staff member who refused the complainant and her partner entry wrote to the complainant apologising for the incident. The nightclub also updated its dress code policy to remove references to sex or gender.

The complainant identifies as non-binary and sought to have their gender identifier with two government agencies changed to ‘X’ and honorific changed to ‘MX’. The complainant said that neither agency would change their gender to ‘X’ or their honorific to ‘MX’. The complainant said one agency agreed to change their gender marker to ‘M’, which they prefer to ‘F’ and offered to have no honorific. The complainant said they found this very distressing and that they felt uncomfortable accessing services due to the way gender was identified in their records. 

The agencies advised they were taking steps to introduce ‘X’ as a gender marker in their system, but given the complexity of this task, this may take some time.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that both agencies change the complainant’s gender marker to ‘M’ until ‘X’ is available. The agencies also agreed that certain staff members would be required to undergo refresher training on gender identity discrimination. The agencies agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant attended the respondent private high school. She alleged that a colleague sexually harassed her, including by taking photos under her skirt, spreading rumours about her sex life, and circulating photos purported to be of her in the nude. She said she made a complaint about this behaviour to the school, but no action was taken. She claimed the school withdrew an award from her because she made a complaint.

The complainant’s colleague denied the allegations. The school said it investigated the complainant’s allegations, but these could not be substantiated.

The complaint was resolved. The school agreed to review its training for the following year in light of the allegations and to pay the complainant $9,000 to assist with medical expenses.

The complainant was employed as a sales representative with the respondent telecommunications company. She alleged the CEO made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, including about her clothes, her sex-life and menopause. She alleged the CEO’s conduct contributed to a sexually hostile working environment.

The respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complainant was made redundant prior to the conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $73,000.

The complainant applied for a coordinator position with the respondent retirement village. She alleged the recruitment officer asked her if she had children and commented that a staff member with children sometimes took time off due to the needs of the children.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retirement village write to the complainant apologising for the incident, develop a policy on equality of opportunity in employment and ensure staff are aware of the policy. The retirement village also undertook that its staff would not ask similar questions in future recruitment processes.

The complainant had a contract with the respondent labour-hire agency. She alleged the agency did not put her forward for placements or inform her of upcoming opportunities after she informed the agency she was pregnant.

The agency denied the allegations of discrimination but agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $8,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

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.