Conciliation Register

The complainant has an assistance animal to alleviate the effects of a number of disabilities, including social anxiety, Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The complainant alleged staff at the respondent grocery store told her she was not allowed in with her dog, despite her explaining it was an assistance animal. The complainant said she was ultimately served, but felt very upset.

The store owner explained he had been unaware of his obligations under federal discrimination law and served the complainant once she explained her dog was an assistance animal and should be allowed in the store.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the store owner place an ‘Assistance Dogs Welcome’ sign in his store and write to the complainant expressing regret for the incident.

The complainant worked as a sales assistant and then as a store manager with the respondent furniture company. She alleged that two male directors and a male colleague sexually harassed her over several years, including by drawing sexually explicit cartoons and showing them to her, telling her she needed a ‘boob job’, making comments of a sexual nature, telling sexually explicit stories and showing other colleagues sexually explicit videos.  The complainant claimed other directors took no action in response to her concerns about this conduct and so she felt she had no option but to resign.

The respondents claimed the complainant was a willing participant in any conduct of a sexual nature that did take place and that she engaged in like conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents would jointly pay the complainant $30,000 and that the company will develop a discrimination and harassment policy which will include discussion of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Each individual respondent also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint and to undertake training delivered by an external provider on discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

The complainant was employed as a chef at the respondent restaurant. She alleged that her acting supervisor sexually harassed her by touching her on the back and shoulders, asking her on dates, telling her ‘you need to build some ass’  and telling her that she looked like a MILF when she wore dark lipstick. The complainant alleged that, after she told management about the conduct and her intention to lodge a complaint with this Commission, she was told not to attend her next shift, management raised concerns about her performance and she was told ‘I would resign if I were you’. She felt she had no option but to resign from her employment. 

The complainant’s former supervisor claimed he and the complainant had recently ended a consensual sexual relationship. He claimed that if he touched her in the kitchen, it was only to move past her. While he confirmed that he made some of the alleged comments, he denied others. The restaurant claimed it counselled the complainant’s former supervisor in response to her internal complaint and removed his higher duties. The restaurant claimed it held genuine concerns about the complainant’s performance prior to her internal complaint. The restaurant said these included that the complainant was producing poor quality food, was not wearing a hair net in the kitchen and wore nail polish to work. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant approximately $1,100, equivalent to three weeks’ pay. The restaurant also agreed to hold an all-staff meeting to be attended by the complainant and her former supervisor. The complainant’s former supervisor agreed to say the following at the all-staff meeting: ‘I understand there was a complaint from [the complainant] about workplace issues involving me. I confirm that we were able to resolve the complaint through conciliation. I regret that [the complainant] left the restaurant in the way she did and I wish her all the best for future endeavours.’ The complainant agreed to discontinue complaints she had made in other jurisdictions.  

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focussed on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant’s ability to meet payments.

 

The complainant has a number of medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, kidney stones, diabetes and depression. She alleged that during her employment with the respondent plant nursery, negative statements were made about her disability, including that her disability impacted negatively on her performance. The complainant claimed the nursery required her to undergo a fitness for duty process and ultimately terminated her employment.

The nursery claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated due to poor performance and not because of her disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the nursery pay the complainant $10,000, provide her with a statement of service and characterise the end of the employment as a resignation. The nursery also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant is HIV+ and attended the respondent driving school in order to obtain a truck-driving licence. She said that she disclosed that she takes medication to manage her disability to the driving instructor while the two were driving as part of a one-to-one lesson. She alleged the instructor told her she had put the lives of everyone who had been in the truck at risk, directed her to stop the truck and get into the passenger’s seat and drove back to the driving school. The complainant alleged that when she wrote down the name of her medication on a piece of paper at the instructor’s request, he picked it up by the corner with the tips of his fingers. The complainant claimed she felt the instructor was afraid of, and disgusted, by her. The complainant said she raised concerns about what happened with the driving school but was not satisfied with the response. She said she was unable to finish her driving course or obtain her licence.

The driving school said that the government authority that accredits the driving course requires students to disclose on enrolment if they are taking any medication. If a student is taking any medication, the student must be cleared by the authority before being able to undertake the driving course. The driving school said the complainant had failed to disclose that she was on medication. The driving school said that, on finding out that the complainant was on medication, the instructor had no option but to stop the truck and drive her back to base. The driving school said the instructor denied behaving in a manner that conveyed fear or disgust towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the driving school refund the complainant $1,350 for the cost of the course, deliver training to all staff on the needs of students with disability and draft guidelines for instructors on how best to respond to disclosures by students that they are on medication.

The complainant is Aboriginal and worked as a cleaner at the respondent hotel. She alleged that, after a change of ownership, her shifts were reduced and eventually, she was not offered any work. She claimed the hotel did not offer any reasons for the reduction in her shifts, there was no downturn in business, no issues were raised about her performance and another Aboriginal cleaner was also not offered further work after the change in ownership.

The hotel advised that the new owners took over some of the cleaning duties, meaning there was less work available for staff.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $1,500, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant worked for the respondent television production company as a crew member. She alleged a colleague sexually harassed her, including by making comments about her appearance and slapping her on her buttocks. She also alleged two other colleagues observed the conduct and one said 'nah, she wants it hey', to which the other said ' yeah mate she does' in relation to inferred sexual acts.

The television production company said it terminated the complainant’s colleague’s employment following an internal investigation which found he had sexually harassed her. The company noted the complainant’s colleague was stood down with pay during the investigation and both were offered counselling support. The company claimed it only became aware of the complainant’s allegations against the two bystanders as a result of her complaint to the Commission and was unable to substantiate her allegations. The company claimed it took reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, including putting in place relevant policies and procedures and conducting regular training.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the television production company pay the complainant $47,500 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and provide her with a point of contact for prospective employers. The company also agreed to deliver training on sexual harassment to all staff. The complainant’s former colleague agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and to write to her apologising for the conduct complained about. One of the bystanders also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the incident.

 

The complainant was employed as an executive manager with the respondent corporate. She alleged that, after she informed the corporation that she was pregnant and would be seeking seven months’ maternity leave, she was informed her role would be made redundant, was offered an inferior role and was not offered a more senior role for which she was qualified. She further alleges that, when she returned to work after her maternity leave the corporation informed her that her new role would be made redundant and that there were no opportunities for redeployment. 

The corporation claimed that the redundancies were based on genuine operational requirements, the role offered to the complainant was not a demotion and the complainant was not qualified for the more senior role she was interested in. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the corporation pay the complainant $45,000 general damages, $5,000 in compensation for legal costs and $5,000 as an eligible termination payment.  

The complainant is Deaf and claimed that on several occasions his bank tried to communicate with him by telephone regarding his accounts. He claimed this required him to attend a branch in person to conduct his banking or to enlist the assistance of another person to communicate with the bank by telephone, meaning he needed to disclose his personal banking security information to that person. He considered the bank should offer the option of communication by text message.

On being advised of the complaint the bank agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $500 and offer him personalised banking services, including a point of contact with whom he can communicate via text message.

The complainant has an intellectual disability and is non-verbal. The complainant’s advocate alleged that the respondent organisation delivering support to persons with disability required the complainant to sign a service agreement before delivering one-to-one support as set out in her NDIS plan. As the complainant did not have capacity to sign the agreement because of her disability, she was unable to receive the service.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation deliver support to the complainant without the need for her to sign a service agreement on the basis that discussions about the complainant’s needs would be held between the complainant’s support coordinator, advocate and the organisation.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal that assists in managing an anxiety disorder. She alleged a staff member at the respondent café, where she was breakfasting with her family,  told her she had to take her dog outside, despite the dog wearing a harness identifying it as an assistance animal. The complainant alleged the staff member’s aggressive manner led other patrons to become aggressive towards her and her experiencing a panic attack.

The café claimed the complainant’s dog was not wearing a jacket, was on an extendable lead and was roaming around the café, jumping up and sniffing other patrons and their food. The café claimed the staff member asked the complainant to demonstrate the dog was an assistance animal and under her control. The café denied the staff member was aggressive towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that a photo of the complainant and her dog be placed in the café’s staff room so that staff are familiar with them. The café’s owner undertook to hold a staff meeting to discuss the incident giving rise to the complaint and to provide the complainant with his phone number should she experience any problems in the future.

 

The complainant advised she is a South Sea Islander and her husband and children are Aboriginal. She is 53 years of age and worked as an animal facility officer with the respondent local council. The complainant alleged that, during a conversation, a colleague referred repeatedly to ‘Abos’ and said words to the effect that ‘they are okay when they are not drunk’. She alleged that when seeking to use a computer the complainant was using, the same colleague said ‘It’s not my fault you are so slow cause you are old’. She alleged both conversations took place in front of a supervisor, who took no action. The complainant said she made a complaint to Human Resources, who found allegations of racism to be substantiated but asked her if she would have found it as offensive had her colleague been referring to ‘pommies’. The complainant felt she had no option but to resign.

The council confirmed that an internal investigation found the complainant’s allegations to be substantiated. The council claimed all the recommendations of the investigator’s report were implemented.

The complaint was resolved. The council assured the complainant of its commitment to cultural diversity as reflected in its policies, including its code of conduct. The council undertook to include diversity as a topic in induction training and to include a leaflet on cultural diversity in its new induction pack.

The complainant was employed as an office manager by the respondent plant equipment supplier.  She alleged a manager sexually harassed her, including by regularly telling her she looked beautiful, propositioning her for sex, trying to kiss her, pressing up against her and inappropriately touching her. She claimed the company did not respond appropriately to her complaint about the manager’s conduct, accused her of making the complaint for financial gain and subsequently terminated her employment. 

The complainant’s former manager claimed that any conduct of a sexual nature was instigated by the complainant. The company claimed the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated and that her employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide the complainant with a statement of service and pay her $29,000. 

The complainant applied for a position as a support worker with the respondent community organisation. She said the organisation withdrew an offer of casual employment once aware of her criminal record.The complainant had been convicted of common assault on three occasions with the most recent conviction occurring eight years earlier. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation employ the complainant as a support worker.