Conciliation Register

The complainant has an assistance dog to help her manage a psychosocial disability. She alleged the respondent private hospital declined her application to participate in a pain management program because she would be accompanied by her assistance dog.

The hospital said it regularly allows patients with assistance animals to participate in programs run by the hospital. The hospital claimed the area in which the pain management program would take place was small and it considered allowing the complainant to participate with her assistance dog would impose an unjustifiable hardship due to possible safety risks and impact on other patients.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital admit the complainant into the pain management program with her assistance dog and provide her with reasonable adjustments. The hospital also agreed to pay the complainant $2,500. Finally, the hospital agreed to review its patient information publication to incorporate the complainant’s feedback, to allow program participants to provide information about assistance animals at early stages of application processes and to publish revised patient information on its website. 

The complainant's 13-year-old son has mild autism and anxiety and played a team sport with the respondent community sporting club. The complainant alleged that the club’s coaches removed her son from a team, saying his anxiety and shyness with other members of the team would cause confusion and ‘let down’ the team. The complainant’s son was no longer involved with the club at the time the complaint was lodged.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club write to the complainant’s son acknowledging that he felt hurt, humiliated and dissatisfied and apologising for any actions that caused him distress. In the letter, the club also thanked the complainant’s son for voicing his concerns and advised that, as a result of his complaint, policies and procedures on accommodating players with disability and responding to complaints would be implemented.

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 is 64 years of age and applied for the role of flying instructor with the respondent aviation company. He advised he was not offered an interview and claimed the successful applicants were both aged in their thirties, were less experienced than himself and had been trained by him. He also said the company informed him it had believed he held a restricted pilot’s licence. He alleged his application was unsuccessful because of his age and because the company believed him to have a disability.

The company claimed the selection process was merit-based and the two successful applicants out-performed the complainant on their ability to contribute to projects and tasks across the company. 

The company's human resources director wrote to the complainant acknowledging that he found the recruitment process 'hurtful and disappointing' and that the company could have done better in drafting more precise and targeted selection criteria for the role. In the letter, the company also acknowledged that the complainant may have been able to elaborate on his own ability to contribute to projects and tasks across the company if interviewed and apologised for any distress that he experienced. The complainant considered that the company’s apology resolved his complaint.

The complainant has a genetic disorder characterised by hormone imbalance. He alleged the respondent insurer rejected his application for income protection insurance because of his medical condition and his disclosure that he had seen a counsellor following a relationship break down. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer would review the complainant’s application for income protection insurance, write to him apologising for his experience and make a $1,000 donation to a charity supporting people with psychosocial disability. The insurer also agreed to review its policies and procedures regarding assessment of insurance applications and the information provided to applicants about decisions made regarding their applications.

The complainant’s four-year-old daughter has autism. The complainant and her family booked a holiday on a cruise operated by the respondent cruise company. The complainant said she made enquiries about her daughter attending the cruise’s child activity centre given she still uses nappies because of her disability and claimed she was informed the centre did not accept children who still wore nappies.

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

The complaint was resolved. The cruise company apologised to the complainant for the initial decision to refuse her child access to the on-board child activity centre and agreed the complainant’s daughter would be able to access the centre during the cruise. It was agreed the centre would contact the complainant if/when her daughter required a nappy change.

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 Indigenous and played for the respondent sports club. He advised he was seriously injured during a game and alleged the club treated him less favourably than non-Indigenous players with similar injuries, including by leaving him alone in the change rooms, not providing appropriate medical care, not calling an ambulance until some time after the injury, not following up on his medical care and not arranging for team members to visit him. 

The club claimed its first aid officer provided appropriate care to the complainant and that an ambulance was called once the seriousness of the injury became clear. The club said it provided support to the complainant while he was in hospital and recovering. The sport’s governing body said that, while it had no direct control over what took place in this particular case, it provided appropriate support to Indigenous players.

The complaint was resolved. The sport’s governing body expressed its regret to the complainant for feeling he had not been adequately supported. The governing body undertook to provide the complainant with relevant policies and its Reconciliation Action Plan and to consider the complainant’s feedback on these documents when they were next reviewed.

The complainant is blind and relies on screen reading software to access the internet. He alleged he was unable to book two international flights on the respondent airline’s website because it was not compatible with his screen reading software.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline implement recommendations from an audit of its website to ensure accessibility to screen reading software. The airline also offered the complainant two upgrade vouchers for international flights.

The complainant has nerve damage resulting from surgery on her spine to remove a non-cancerous growth. She alleged the respondent superannuation fund declined her application to increase her income protection cover because of her medical history. The complainant considers this decision was discriminatory as she works full time and leads an active lifestyle. She also claimed the manner in which a staff member of the fund disclosed to her over the phone that she was ineligible for increased cover because of her disability reduced her to tears.

The superannuation fund said the manner in which the underwriter communicated the decision to decline the complainant’s application for increased cover was inappropriate and apologised for any distress the complainant experienced as a result. The fund advised that, as a result of the complaint, the underwriter involved was counselled and staff received training to avoid similar situations in the future. The fund claimed the decision not to grant the complainant additional cover was appropriate given her medical condition and the absence of additional medical information. The fund indicated a willingness to review its decision pending provision of additional information by the complainant.

The complainant considered the complaint resolved based on the steps taken by the superannuation fund in response to her complaint.

The complainant is of Torres Strait Island ethnic origin and had been employed by the respondent private school for over ten years. He said that, during a discussion with a colleague about a possible lift to another colleague’s wedding, he was vague about his pick-up address. He alleged the colleague asked him ‘why you don't want to tell me where you live, is that because you are a Boonga?’ The complainant claimed that the term 'boonga' is offensive to those of Indigenous heritage and that the colleague asked the question to be disparaging of his race and to imply he lived in sub-standard housing. The complainant claimed the school failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the incident. The complainant resigned his employment before lodging a complaint with the Commission.

The school confirmed that the complainant was subjected to an offensive and insensitive comment in the workplace, but denied not responding appropriately to the incident. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $7,500 as general damages, undertake to update its policies and procedures (including policies regarding non-discrimination and its code of conduct) and arrange training in relation to the above policies.

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 is a 56 year old retiree and applied for a credit card with the respondent bank. He claimed the bank declined his application because he does not earn a wage or property income. He claimed the bank told him it did not consider a retiree’s assets or pension income when assessing a credit card application.

The bank confirmed the complainant’s application for a credit card was rejected because he did not meet the income threshold required and concerns were held about his ability to service the credit limit requested. The bank denied age was a factor in its decision and stated strict income requirements were applied to the issuing of credit cards.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the decision to decline the complainant’s application would not be entered in his credit record. The bank also advised it would review its policies and procedures with respect to retiree applications for credit cards.

The complainant’s wife has an assistance animal trained to alleviate the effects of her disability. The couple booked and paid for a four-day ticket to a national park. The complainant claimed that two days into their stay, a park ranger directed them to obtain a vest for the assistance animal or leave the park early.

On being advised of the complaint the relevant government agency indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint.

In response to the complaint, the government authority expressed regret for the events giving rise to the complaint and offered to conduct a review of its policies regarding the presence of pets in national parks. The agency also advised that, in response to the complaint, it had made available in the parks under its administration vests and harnesses for assistance animals, as well as temporary signage to educate other park goers about assistance animals. The complainant considered the steps taken by the agency resolved the complaint.

The complainant has bilateral trans-tibial (below-the-knee) amputations. He claimed ramps at the respondent café were temporarily blocked off and he slipped and nearly fell trying to access the café via steep stairs.

The café confirmed ramp access had been temporarily unavailable and indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved. The café apologised to the complainant for his experience and reassured him ramp access to the café has been restored. The café advised that in response to the complaint, signage regarding accessible entrances has been installed and staff reminded of the need to inform patrons with disability about accessible entrances to the café.