Conciliation Register

The complainant’s son is 16 years of age and attended the respondent public high school. The complainant and her son are Aboriginal. The complainant alleged her son was required to complete a comprehension test with statements such as ‘universities started accepting all women in 1875’ and ‘all women were granted suffrage in 1902’. She said her son would be required to treat such statements as accurate to pass the test despite the statements not being accurate in the case of Aboriginal women. She alleged the test did not treat Aboriginal women as Australian women and was therefore discriminatory.

On being advised of the complaint, the school indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The school acknowledged not all statements on the test were accurate and undertook to correct this. The school expressed regret for hurting the complainant’s son’s feelings and agreed to pay him $2,800.

The complainant worked at the respondent university and claimed her manager, an academic, discriminated against her on the ground of her sex by undermining her, commenting on her appearance and referring to her as ‘looking good, but not adding any value to the portfolio’. She said the manager resigned after she made a complaint about him. She claimed there was a ‘boys’ club’ culture and she was not offered promotional opportunities that she had been promised or that she had sought. She alleged another academic sexually harassed her by making comments including ‘you’re pretty hot’. She said that after she made a complaint about this behaviour, her manager treated her less favourably and another academic did not support the renewal of her contract.

The respondents claimed the alleged comments were mischaracterised by the complainant and were not of a sexual nature. The university claimed the complainant was not the most qualified person for the promotional opportunities and that her contract was not renewed for operational reasons.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $17,500.

The complainant identifies as a trans woman and alleged her superannuation fund persisted in addressing correspondence to her former male name.

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the superannuation fund to update the complainant’s record to reflect her correct name and gender identity.

The complainant has osteogenesis imperfecta (also known as ‘brittle-bone disease’). She approached the respondent government department seeking clearance to teach at a public school after completing a teaching qualification. She alleged the department offered her limited permission to teach because of her disability. 

The department claimed it had an obligation to ensure potential staff were able to teach and supervise children in a safe manner and that it was appropriate to offer the complainant limited clearance to teach until the effects of her disability were better understood.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department provide the complainant with full clearance to teach, amend her record accordingly and pay her $16,500.

The complainant had a knee injury which made it difficult for her to walk or climb stairs. She sought temporary accommodation with the respondent domestic violence support service and was offered an upstairs room. She claimed her request for ground floor accommodation in the communal living area to accommodate her disability was refused.

The domestic violence support service said it was not informed of the complainant’s disability through the intake process. The service said once it was made aware of her disability, it offered her suitable accommodation at another location.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the domestic violence support service to review its intake process and deliver disability awareness training to staff. The service also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for her negative experience.

The complainant’s sons have language difficulties and anxiety and his father-in-law, who resides with the family, has Parkinson’s disease and dementia. The complainant worked at the respondent bank was was undertaking a secondment in a senior consultant role. He alleged his team leader told him the bank did not want him to continue in the secondment because of his family responsibilities.

The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader met with him to discuss ongoing concerns about his stress levels. The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader was aiming to remove stress from the complainant’s work to enable him to focus on his family situation. The bank said its intention was to support the complainant and not to discriminate against him.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement to end the employment relationship. The bank agreed to pay the complainant $45,000 less applicable tax and inclusive of all statutory entitlements. The bank also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service and a contact point for prospective employers. 

The complainant has a vision impairment and was employed by the respondent community organisation. She alleged the organisation did not provide adjustments to accommodate her disability, including a larger computer screen. She also alleged she was required to access the organisation’s server via her mobile phone or library computers for several months. She claimed the requirement to access the organisation’s server without access to a larger monitor had a negative impact on her health and she felt she had no option but to resign.

The community organisation claimed the complainant did not request adjustments prior to her engagement or in writing after her engagement. The organisation claimed if made certain adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s disability and acknowledged there had been supplier delays in the delivery of computer equipment requested to accommodate the complainant’s disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation pay the complainant $10,000 as compensation for pain and suffering and write to her acknowledging the difficulties she experienced due to supplier delays in the delivery of certain computer equipment. The organisation also undertook to revise its policies regarding requests for workplace adjustments to ensure oral requests for adjustment were appropriately considered and acted on. Additionally, the organisation agreed to deliver disability awareness training to management staff.

The complainant’s son has depression, which can manifest as self-harming behaviour and suicidal ideation. He attended Year 10 at the respondent private school. The complainant alleged that the school excluded her son when made aware of his disability, but allowed him to return following provision of a medical certificate. The complainant’s son had some time off school following an incident on school premises that could have been a suicide attempt. The complainant alleges that, on his return, the school again excluded her son and required him to consult a psychiatrist and take medication, contrary to his treating doctor’s advice.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant’s son could return to school following the provision of a letter from his general practitioner addressing specific areas of concern held by the school. The school agreed to write to the complainant’s son apologising for the distress he experienced, give him access to an after-school program to help him catch up on his work and pay him $7,500 to assist with treatment costs and in compensation for the distress he experienced. The school also advised it had reviewed its policies and procedures in response to the complaint.

The complainant is African Australian and was employed as a casual sales assistant with the respondent retailer. She claimed that a colleague bullied her, commented that her skin looked 'different' and reported to management that she felt 'uncomfortable' working with the complainant. The complainant alleged the retailer did not offer her further work.

The retailer claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated on performance grounds.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer pay the complainant $2,000 as general damages and deliver training to managers on anti-discrimination, cultural sensitivity and complaint handling. The retailer agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the events that gave rise to her complaint.

The complainant worked as a store and deli team member with the respondent supermarket. She alleged a more senior team member sexually harassed her including by sending her text and online messages asking her on a date, asking what she looked like without her head scarf and telling her she was sexy. She alleged that when she made a complaint to Human Resources, the matter was not properly investigated and she was threatened with disciplinary action.

The supermarket claimed the complainant and individual respondent were in a relationship and the alleged conduct was reciprocated by the complainant. The supermarket said it could not substantiate allegations of sexual harassment and therefore reminded both staff members of their obligations with respect to appropriate workplace behaviour. The supermarket also required both staff members to complete an online training module on the supermarket’s code of conduct.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The supermarket agreed to pay the complainant $27,000 ex-gratia and provide her with a statement of service. Both respondents agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to her complaint.

The complainant alleged that the respondent bank terminated his employment as a customer service officer in his second week of employment because of his criminal record. The complainant said he had not been convicted of fraud or theft offences and had been honest about his criminal record. He said he had undertaken drug dependence rehabilitation since his conviction and was fit to perform the role.

The bank said it was not fully aware of the nature of the complainant’s criminal record until after he commenced his employment. The bank noted the complainant had been convicted of a range of offences, including break and enter and contravention of an apprehended violence order, four years before he applied for the role. The bank said the complainant’s role included accessing sensitive customer information and identity details. The bank said it offered the complainant the opportunity to discuss his criminal record but, due to the serious nature of the offences, the short period of time since the offences and its obligations to protect customers, the bank concluded it did not have the trust and confidence required in him to perform the inherent requirements of the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $5,000 and offer him the opportunity to participate in its outplacement program.

The complainant took time off work as a nurse at the respondent medical practice to undertake treatment for cancer. She alleged that, during her absence, the medical practice hired a nurse to perform her role, changed her working days and reduced her working hours without consulting her. 

The medical practice claimed that, as a casual employee, the complainant had no entitlement to ongoing employment or to sick leave and therefore, the medical practice had no obligation to keep the job open for the complainant. The medical practice noted that the complainant’s return date was uncertain due to the nature of her medical treatment and that members of the practice required nurse support while she was absent. The medical practice expressed regret for the anger the complainant felt about the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant was no longer employed with the medical practice at the time of conciliation. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the medical practice pay the complainant $10,000 as an eligible termination payment and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant is blind and resides in government public housing. She claimed she had made an arrangement with her case worker to ensure correspondence would be sent to her in an email or as an accessible attachment to an email. The complainant claimed the arrangement ceased when a new case worker took over management of her tenancy and she was therefore no longer able to read correspondence.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local client services team would provide the complainant with all correspondence in an accessible format and create a system alert notifying any future case worker of her requirements.

The complainant alleged a male colleague at the respondent university sexually harassed her, including by using sexual innuendo in conversation, looking  at pornography on his computer, invading her personal space and touching her without consent. She also claimed a female colleague participated in some of the alleged conduct. The complainant alleged the male colleague waited for her outside the female toilets and confronted her about complaints she made to management about his conduct. She said the male colleague’s employment with the university ended following an internal investigation of her claims and he was not replaced, resulting in an increased workload for other staff.  She said her colleagues were unhappy about this and claimed a colleague said to her ‘it’s not like you were bloody raped, for God’s sake!’ The complainant felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents jointly pay the complainant $35,000 as general damages.

The complainant is the primary carer for her grand-daughter, who has Autism, and for a number of relatives. She advised she had worked for the respondent government agency as an auditor for several years. She said she had been permitted to work two days per week and to use purchased leave to accommodate her family responsibilities. The complainant claimed that, after a restructure, the agency informed her she would be required to work three or four days per week and to take less or no purchased leave. The complainant had taken personal leave and become unwell.

The government agency denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the matter.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency offer the complainant a graduated return to work in a new two-day per week position. The agency also advised the complainant she would have access to purchased leave.