Conciliation Register

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 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.

The complainant is 35 years of age and of Pakistani national origin. He alleged that, during an interview for an engineering role with the respondent company, the interviewer asked him about his nationality and said he would not hire the complainant. The complainant claimed the interviewer said ‘age is an issue’, ‘you will struggle to get a job in this age’ and that he would not fit in with the "young" team.

The company said interviewers ask a range of questions to get to know prospective employees and noted it employs staff of different ages and ethnic and national origins.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the company to review its recruitment process so that interviews are conducted by two staff members. The company also undertook to commission an external provider to deliver training on discrimination and cultural awareness. The interviewer wrote to the complainant to apologise for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant is a leg amputee and uses a wheelchair. He alleged there were no wheelchair accessible toilet facilities at the respondent hotel, where he was drinking with friends.

On being notified of the complaint, the hotel indicated a willingness to participate in the Commission's conciliation process to attempt resolution of the matter.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel display a mobility map on the premises, which would include the location of accessible toilet facilities near the hotel. The hotel undertook to liaise with a nearby business regarding the use of its accessible toilet facilities by hotel patrons requiring such facilities. The hotel also agreed to train its staff regarding the use of accessible toilet facilities by patrons with disability and the location of nearby accessible toilet facilities

The complainant worked in a maintenance role for the respondent utilities corporation. He developed a mild hearing impairment which required the use of hearing aids and was placed on light duties. The complainant claimed the company required him to undergo a number of driving tests and medical assessments following concerns raised by colleagues. He claimed that, based on the results, the company imputed a cognitive disability to him and questioned his ability to perform the role, despite his neurologist declaring him fit for duties.

The company claimed that driving tests and medical assessments indicated the complainant was unable to safely operate heavy vehicles due to his disability. The company said the ability to operate heavy vehicles was an inherent requirement of the complainant’s role. The company noted the complainant subsequently lost his licence to drive heavy vehicles.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $30,000 ex-gratia and $2,000 in lieu of notice and in outstanding benefits. The company also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service.

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’s five-year-old son has autism spectrum disorder, anaphylaxis, sensory processing difficulties and ADD. The complainant alleged the respondent public primary school failed to appropriately support her son’s transition into the school or to provide him with reasonable adjustments while at the school. The complainant removed her son from the school shortly after lodging the complaint.

The government department responsible for operation of the school denied the allegations, but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department pay the complainant $15,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

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 injured his wrist in the course of his work as a surgeon at the respondent public hospital and lodged a workers compensation claim. He alleged the hospital treated him less favourably because of his disability, including by dealing inappropriately with his workers compensation claim, unfavourable comments by staff, terminating his employment and denial of opportunities for locum work. 

The hospital claimed the complainant resigned from his employment. The hospital said the complainant was required to perform ‘light duties’ due to his injury and no locum work was available for such duties.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant $28,000 as general damages and write to him expressing regret for the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

The complainant has anxiety and has an assistance animal. She alleged the driver of a bus operated by the respondent public transport provider did not allow her to enter the bus with her assistance dog, despite her showing him a card from the training organisation and the dog wearing a cape identifying it as an assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the transport provider pay the complainant $2,000 and write to her apologising for the incident. The transport provider undertook to deliver training to staff regarding passengers with assistance animals, including the right of passengers to travel with their assistance animals and the documents that can be provided to identify an animal as an assistance animal. The transport provider agreed to place posters at staff depots regarding passengers with assistance animals and to advise staff that passengers with animals trained by the organisation that trained the complainant’s assistance dogs would be allowed to travel with their assistance animal.

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.