Conciliation Register

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 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.

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 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.