Conciliation Register

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 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.

 

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The complainant operates a veterinary business and purchased products from the respondent pharmaceutical company. She advised she attended a conference and dinner arranged and paid for by the company. She alleged that during the dinner an employee of the company sexually harassed her, including by asking her if her nipples were pierced and telling her “I can’t wait to get your smell on my pillow”. The complainant claimed the company failed to respond appropriately when she raised concerns about the individual’s behaviour.

The pharmaceutical company said the complainant’s allegations were investigated. The company said the individual involved confirmed he made some, but not all, the alleged comments. The company claimed the complainant was advised that the company issued the individual concerned with a formal warning and that it would consider terminating his employment should a similar incident occur in the future. The company argued it was not liable for the actions of the individual because it had responded appropriately to the complainant’s concerns. 

The complaint was resolved. The pharmaceutical company acknowledged and expressed regret for the distress the complainant experienced as a result of the events complained of. The individual involved acknowledged and expressed regret for the adverse effects the complainant experienced as a result of his comments and undertook never to behave in that way again. The respondents agreed to pay the complainant $16,000 in compensation for hurt and distress.

The complainant said he is an Indigenous man and was employed in a reception and administration role with the respondent Indigenous community organisation. He advised that he applied for a house provided by his employer for him and his same-sex partner. The complainant claimed a director of the organisation’s Board told another applicant that the organisation wanted to offer “a poofter and his man” the house and that he would take action to prevent this from happening. He said the organisation offered the other applicant the house and he now felt uncomfortable returning to the workplace because of the director’s comments.

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The community organisation agreed to pay the complainant $3,000, provide him with a positive reference and a written apology from the organisation’s Board.

The complainant was pregnant and was studying nursing at the respondent university. She claimed the university told her she would be unable to enrol in residential school when more than 36 weeks into her pregnancy because the course would involve administering CPR and manual handling.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university allow the complainant to enrol in residential school subject to medical clearance to participate in the course. The university also undertook to revise its policies and procedures to enable pregnant students to enrol in residential school regardless of the stage of the their pregnancy provided they have medical clearance to undertake the relevant course.