Conciliation Register

The complainant is vegan and worked for the respondent car repair company. He claimed two managers told him veganism was a feminine attribute and imputed he was homosexual because of his veganism, calling him ‘fag’, ‘poof’ and ‘gay’. He claimed one of the managers sexually harassed him by showing him pictures of naked women on the work computer. The complainant said he took time off work due to a stomach ache and alleged the managers told him his employment would be terminated if he took three days off. The complainant left his employment before lodging a complaint with the Commission.

The company and the two managers denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $8,840 and deliver training on discrimination and harassment at the complainant’s workplace. One of the managers also agreed to undertake external training on discrimination and harassment. The company and the two managers agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant was offered employment at the respondent logistics corporation. She said she informed the company of her pregnancy at interview and sought leave to begin ten weeks after her role started in order to have her baby. The complainant alleged that she was told she was not welcome at the company and that the company terminated her employment on the basis that she abandoned her employment.

The company claimed there was a dispute between the parties and the complainant stopped attending work. The company claimed it had no option but to terminate the complainant’s employment due to non-attendance.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company offer the complainant the role for which she successfully applied and make adjustments to her attendance at the workplace to accommodate her family responsibilities.

The complainant worked for the respondent not-for-profit fitness and sporting organisation. He alleged a male colleague sexually harassed him by making inappropriate comments, rubbing his groin against the complainant's leg while saying ‘I'm humping you’, making sexual comments and unwanted physical contact such as hugs. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the organisation agreed to pay the complainant $25,000 as compensation for hurt and distress.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis at the respondent sporting club. She alleged the head coach at the club sexually harassed her, including by brushing his hands over her legs, touching her neck, commenting that he could see her bra under her work t-shirt, asking intrusive questions about her private life and telling jokes of a sexual nature  in front of her. The complainant said she resigned her employment because of the alleged conduct.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club pay the complainant $200 as compensation for lost income due to shifts not worked as a result of the resignation. The club also outlined policies, procedures and training implemented as a result of the complaint aimed at preventing sexual harassment and improving responses to allegations of sexual harassment. The coach acknowledged the complainant’s experience and said he had “learnt [his] lesson”. 

 

The complainant was employed in a temporary administrative role with the respondent distribution centre while the company looked for someone to fill the role on a permanent fulltime basis. She alleged the company told her there was no further work available for her after becoming aware of her pregnancy, but employed another person on a temporary basis in her place.

The company claimed a person was found to fill the complainant’s role on a permanent fulltime basis. The company said it could not find the complainant alternative temporary work because it could not meet her salary expectations, so employed another temporary worker on a lower wage.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $5,700, equivalent to five weeks’ wages.

The complainant was employed by the respondent telecommunications corporation. He alleged that, during the company’s Christmas party, his male supervisor took the complainant’s genitals in his hand and squeezed while smiling. The complainant alleged the company did not respond appropriately to his internal complaint about the incident because of his sex. He claimed the complaint process was slow, he was required to remain under his supervisor’s supervision and his supervisor was informed of the complaint. He claimed the company required his supervisor to apologise to him and that his supervisor used the phrase “grab your cock” several times during the conversation. The complainant said he felt he had no option but to leave his employment and alleged that the company gave him an adverse reference despite there being no performance issues during his employment, costing him a subsequent employment opportunity.

The company claimed the complainant’s concerns were responded to appropriately and argued it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, including having appropriate policies and procedures in place.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $25,000 as general damages and write to him acknowledging and expressing regret for the stress and discomfort he said he experienced as the result of the events giving rise to the complaint. The company also undertook to deliver training to managers, leaders and staff in his former team on a range of issues, including sexual harassment, sex discrimination and the company’s complaint process.

The complainant had been employed at the respondent warehouse company for over ten years, since she was a young worker. At the time of the alleged events, she was employed as retail operations manager. The complainant alleged that one of the warehouse owners sexually harassed her throughout her employment, including by telling her she had “the best boobs”, starting at her breasts and asking to touch them and requesting “blow jobs” while pushing her head down towards his groin. She said that after she made a complaint to the company, she was moved into a different role at a different site. She said the new role was not enjoyable and did not attract as much income in penalty rates. She claimed she was aware of a number of employees who claimed to have been sexually harassed by the owner.

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $100,000, comprising relevant termination payments and general damages. The company also agreed to develop policies and training relating to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

The complainant worked for the respondent agricultural company. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by obtaining her mobile number from the company records without proper authority, sending her sexually explicit text messages, and attempting to touch her breasts and bottom. The complainant resigned from her employment before lodging the complaint. 

On being advised of the complaint, the company and the complainant’s former manager agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The company advised that, in response to the complaint, in-depth sexual harassment training would be delivered to managers and human resources staff would be more prominent on-site. The company also agreed to pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and her former manager agreed to pay her $3,000 as general damages. 

The complainant was pregnant and worked at the respondent training provider. She alleged the company initiated a formal performance management process because she was late to work on some occasions due to severe morning sickness. 

The complainant’s supervisor and the company denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,000 as general damages, waive debts due to accidental over payment and provide her with a statement of service. The company also agreed to review policies and training with respect to equal employment opportunity, incorporating feedback from the complainant. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a store assistant at the respondent grocery store. She alleged the store owner sexually harassed her, including by making her take a tablet without telling her what it was, asking her about her sex life, telling her about his sex life, hugging her and kissing her on the cheek. She said she resigned because of this conduct.

On being advised of the complaint, the grocery store and its owner indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the grocery store pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and implement sexual harassment and discrimination training. The store owner agreed to undertake the training.

The complainant was employed as an oil rig operator at the respondent oil company. She alleged male colleagues sexually harassed her over several years, including by showing pictures of their genitals, talking about their sex life and asking about hers, telling sexual jokes and touching/tickling her. She claimed that when she asked colleagues to stop she was told she was being “all rapey” and that when she reported the conduct to her manager he was dismissive, saying “boys will be boys”. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant a global sum of $150,000 comprising payments in lieu of notice, in compensation for statutory entitlements, and in compensation for future economic loss and in compensation for hurt and suffering.

The respondent clothing company employed the complainant as a human resources manager on a fixed-term contract. The complainant said she worked with the company for approximately six months after the end of her contract and was given to understand she would be offered a permanent role on higher pay. The complainant said she sought a period of leave to have a child. She claimed the company agreed on a return date, sent an email to staff advising of her leave dates, asked her to prepare a contract for permanent employment on her return and asked her to recruit a temporary replacement. She claimed that during her leave the company did not invite her to the end of year party and that when she sought to return to work the company told her there was negative feedback about her performance and no ongoing employment relationship.

The company confirmed it considered offering the complainant a permanent role following her return after having a baby, but decided not to do so based on negative feedback about the complainant’s performance. The company claimed it attempted to discuss this with the complainant, but she declined to do so because it was her second-last day before leaving to have a baby. The company noted the complainant’s contract had expired and no new contract had been signed and argued that there could therefore be no right to, or expectation of, ongoing employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $52,000 as compensation and $25,000 as general damages and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant was employed as a property manager at the respondent real estate agency. She claimed that after she told the director she was pregnant, he said in front of other staff that he would find a way to “get rid” of her, told her it was inappropriate for her to wear flat shoes to accommodate nausea associated with her pregnancy and threatened to end her employment because she left work five minutes early due to feeling unwell. The complainant said she felt unable to return to work due to the director’s alleged behaviour.

The real estate agency indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation and noted it had continued to pay the complainant even though she had been absent from work.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to finalise the employment relationship. The real estate agency agreed to pay the complainant approximately $1,750, equivalent of 2 weeks' pay, and provide her with a positive written reference.

 

The complainant was employed at the respondent gym and claimed she was sexually harassed by a client. She alleged the gym discriminated against her because of her sex by not responding appropriately to her concerns about the client’s conduct, requiring her to keep working with the client and directing her to stop raising concerns about the client’s behaviour. The complainant also claimed that following her internal complaint, the gym raised concerns about her performance and ultimately terminated her employment.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the gym pay the complainant $3,000 as general damages and waive debts owed. The gym also advised that, as a result of the complaint, it had developed an anti-discrimination and harassment policy, which was distributed to all staff and contractors.

The complainant is a transgender woman. She claimed a store manager questioned her presence in the store and made inappropriate comments towards her when she was looking for swimwear at the store. The complainant said she returned items she already purchased because she was so distressed by the manager’s conduct and claimed she was then banned from the store.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer refund the complainant $600 for the returned items and remove her personal details from its database. The retailer assured the complainant that all its employees, as well as those of related companies, are required to undertake anti-discrimination training.