Conciliation Register

The complainant worked as a fulltime assistant manager for the respondent financial/accountancy company. She alleged a male company director told her she could not be promoted because she had children, was unable to work long hours and he could not have a woman represent the company to clients. She also alleged the director did not allow her to work from home or to access personal and annual leave, unlike other staff. Finally, she alleged that the director threatened her employment when she told him she was unable to work longer hours due to her family responsibilities. 

The director and the company denied the allegations 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 $15,000 in compensation for hurt and distress. The director left the company and the complainant remained employed with the company under the supervision of a different manager.

The complainant is Brazilian and worked at the respondent club. She alleged her supervisor sexually harassed her, including by grabbing her waist and squeezing and responding to a comment from someone who thought the complainant and a colleague were his daughters by saying ‘If you knew what I was thinking of doing with my daughters...’ The complainant also alleged that a club member asked her ‘because you are Brazilian, how deep do you go?’ (referencing oral sex) while making suggestive gestures towards his crotch. She claimed management did not respond appropriately when she complained about the alleged conduct. The complainant resigned from her employment shortly after lodging her complaint with the Commission.

The club claimed it took reasonable steps to identify the member who made the alleged comments to the complainant. The club also claimed the alleged comments were recollected and interpreted differently by the complainant and her colleagues.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the club to ensure all staff undertake online induction before commencement. The club also agreed to deliver training to staff on discrimination and sexual harassment, and to provide interpreters where required. The club agreed to pay the complainant $1,000 and offer her access to three Employee Assistance Program sessions. Finally, the club undertook not to employ the supervisor in any capacity for three months or only as a bartender for six months.

The complainant identifies as homosexual and attended the respondent hotel. He alleged a security guard from the respondent security company, which provides security services for the hotel, required him to leave for no reason and said 'jog on faggot.' 

The security guard denied the allegations but both respondents agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. In response to the complaint, the hotel and security company revised their policies and training on non-discrimination and complaint handling. The hotel and the security company also undertook to deliver training to staff on non-discrimination in employment and service delivery and to remind staff of potential disciplinary action that could be taken should these expectations be breached. 

The complainant is Aboriginal and undertook a graduate program with the respondent government department. She acted in higher duties for a period and applied for the role when it was advertised. The complainant was not invited to attend an interview and sought feedback from the head of the interview panel. She alleged he told her that discussing her Aboriginality in her application was a factor in the decision not to interview her and may hinder her prospects of progression. She also alleged that he said the woman who was interviewed wore ‘a nice skirt and heels’, which made her feel her appearance/grooming was being criticised. The complainant said she made an internal complaint about the alleged comments but was unhappy with the department’s response to the complaint. At the time of lodging the complaint, the complainant was on leave without pay and undertaking a Masters degree for which she had been awarded a scholarship.

On being advised of the complaint, the department indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department write to the complainant acknowledging and apologising for her negative experience, stating that the alleged conduct was unacceptable and assuring her that steps were being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. The department also granted the complainant an additional year of leave without pay to allow her to complete her Masters degree and agreed to meet with her to discuss a safe and sustainable return to work. Finally, the department agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 in compensation for hurt and distress.

The complainant alleged a contractor working on the same construction site as her sexually harassed her, including by asking her to have sex with him on multiple occasions and making sexualised comments about her body. She said she eventually resigned from her employment because she did not wish to work alongside the contractor.

On being advised of the complaint, the contractor and his employer indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the contractor’s employer pay the complainant $8,000 and revise its sexual harassment policy. The contractor apologised to the complainant and his employer advised disciplinary action had been taken in relation to the alleged behaviour.

The complainant is 73 years of age and was employed in a senior management role by the respondent metallurgy business. She alleged the business manager discriminated against her because of her age and sex, including by commenting that she ‘couldn't work forever’, asking her to nominate a retirement date, referring to her as ‘back office staff’ rather than senior management, excluding her from senior management meetings, refusing to give her a pay rise and relocating her to a different building isolated from head office. 

The company claimed the complainant commented that she would ‘not be around’ in the future and that discussions about possible retirement were conducted as part of succession planning processes. The company said the complainant was relocated due to a business restructure and not because of her age or sex. The company said the complainant was included in meetings relevant to her work and was one of several staff who did not receive a pay rise that year.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant’s team would be renamed to more accurately reflect the work it performed, location of meetings would alternate between the complainant’s workplace and head office and the company would deliver training on equal employment opportunity to all staff. It was also agreed the company would not initiate any retirement discussions with the complainant, she would meet with her business manager weekly to discuss communication and any other concerns and she would receive a pay-rise the following year, pending overall business performance.

 

The complainant claimed the respondent labour-hire company failed to respond to her emails and phone calls or to offer her work when she sought to return from maternity leave on a part-time basis to accommodate family responsibilities. 

The company said that during the complainant's period of maternity leave, it lost a major labour supply contract and so there were no roles to offer her when she sought to return to work.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $1,00 ex gratia. The complainant remained employed with the company.

 

The complainant was employed at the respondent catering and events company. She alleged a male co-worker sexually harassed her at the work Christmas party, including by telling her he had been watching her ‘strut [her] stuff around the office’ and pinching her bottom three times. She said she made an internal complaint about the incident. She claimed the company originally discouraged her from pursuing the matter and then failed to support her during the complaint process. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages. The company also agreed to contract an Employee Assistance Program for use by its employees, to review and re-launch it sexual harassment policy and grievance procedures, and to conduct training on anti-discrimination and equal opportunity law with its management team.

The complainant was employed as an accountant at the respondent mining company. She said she had a flexible working arrangement to work three days per week and finish each day at 5.00 pm so she could collect her daughter from childcare. She claimed that despite the flexible working arrangement, her manager verbally reprimanded her for leaving work at 5.00 pm and placed her under performance management. She also claimed that the company made her redundant after she made a complaint to this Commission.

The company claimed it held genuine concerns about the complainant’s performance unrelated to her family responsibilities or flexible work arrangement. The company claimed the process that resulted in the complainant’s redundancy began before the complainant made her complaint to the Commission and the complainant’s position was selected for redundancy by someone unaware of the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages, deliver anti-discrimination training to all staff and leadership training to all managers and implement a flexible work guideline incorporating the ability to work from home and access time in lieu.

The complainant worked as a manager at the respondent hotel. She claimed a director of the hotel sexually harassed her, including by hugging and trying to kiss her, putting his hand under her breast, asking where she bought her sex toys and telling her she was ‘beautiful’ and should ‘use her assets’ to improve business. She also claimed that when she contributed to a business discussion at a work-related social function, the director told her to ‘keep her ideas to herself and allow the men to do the thinking’. 

The hotel and its director claimed the complainant had engaged in behaviour of a sexual nature towards others similar to the behaviour being complained about. The hotel also argued the Commission had no jurisdiction to inquire into alleged conduct at the function referred to in the complaint as it was held away from the workplace and outside working hours.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and to resolve a related workers’ compensation claim. The hotel agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 ex gratia.

 

The complainant was employed at a food product factory. She alleged that during her pregnancy her manager called her ‘fat’ and said she would need a size 22 shirt when she asked for a size 14 shirt in front of other colleagues and told a colleague who touched her belly ‘don’t do that or she will yell at you’. The complainant also claimed she was required to perform physically demanding tasks without assistance when heavily pregnant. She said she felt she had no option but to resign her employment.

The company claimed the alleged comments were made in a friendly manner and there was no discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $1,720 as an eligible termination payment and deliver training to factory staff on pregnancy discrimination.

The complainant alleged the respondent golf club required him to remove his singlet and put on a shirt to enter the bar area but did not require women to do the same.

The club confirmed it had a policy of not allowing men to wear a singlet inside the club.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the club to no longer require men not to wear singlets inside the club. The club also apologised to the complainant for his experience at the club.

The complainant is a teenager and alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by asking her how much he would have to pay her to have sex with him, whether she masturbated and whether she had ever had an orgasm. She also alleged he offered to buy her a vibrator. She said she made a complaint to a senior manager, but he took no action and allowed the conduct to continue. She also alleged that when she made a complaint to HR her manager contacted her and tried to intimidate her so she would withdraw her complaint. The complainant said she had not returned to work because she felt unsafe.

 

The retailer argued the conduct was not sexual harassment because it was not unwelcome and claimed the complainant engaged in conduct of a sexual nature at work, including making comments of a sexual nature, rating the attractiveness of men, telling her manager her nipples were pierced and telling him she would have sex with him. The retailer claimed it investigated the complainant’s allegations, offered her a transfer to a different outlet and took disciplinary action against her manager. The retailer advised the senior manager to whom the complainant had made the complaint had since left the business for unrelated reasons. 

The complaint was resolved and the parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The retailer agreed to pay the complainant approximately $40,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and deliver training on sexual harassment to its staff. The complainant’s former manager and senior manager agreed to write to the complainant apologising for any distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant was employed as a seasonal factory hand with the respondent beverage company. She alleged that a colleague sexually harassed her, including by looking at her body in a way that made her feel uncomfortable, saying that she had a beautiful name and making kissing noises towards her. The complainant said she sent the company an email making a complaint about the alleged conduct but received no response. She said there was no female staff member to whom she could report the conduct.

The company claimed it was not informed of the alleged conduct until being notified of the complaint to the Commission. The company advised that, in response to the complaint, management met with staff to discuss sexual harassment and steps were being taken to ensure complaints of sexual harassment are appropriately responded to.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company make a $4,000 donation to a charity assisting women, apologise to the complainant for her experience and update its induction pack to include information about the internal complaint process in cases of alleged sexual harassment.

The complainant was pregnant and worked for the respondent café. She alleged that, in response to a request for her roster, her boss sent her a text message saying 'due to your pregnancy I cannot give you any shifts at the moment'. 

The café’s owner said the complainant had been complaining of tiredness and need for breaks and he held concerns for her safety and the safety of her unborn child. The café’s owner said he had previously been unaware of legislation regarding pregnancy discrimination. As a result of becoming aware of his legal obligations, he indicated the complainant was welcome to return to work immediately.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the café pay the complainant $3,000. The complainant did not wish to return to work at the café, so the parties agreed to end the employment relationship.