Conciliation Register

The complainant worked as a manager at the respondent hotel. She claimed a director of the hotel sexually harassed her, including by hugging and trying to kiss her, putting his hand under her breast, asking where she bought her sex toys and telling her she was ‘beautiful’ and should ‘use her assets’ to improve business. She also claimed that when she contributed to a business discussion at a work-related social function, the director told her to ‘keep her ideas to herself and allow the men to do the thinking’. 

The hotel and its director claimed the complainant had engaged in behaviour of a sexual nature towards others similar to the behaviour being complained about. The hotel also argued the Commission had no jurisdiction to inquire into alleged conduct at the function referred to in the complaint as it was held away from the workplace and outside working hours.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and to resolve a related workers’ compensation claim. The hotel agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 ex gratia.

 

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.

The complainant was employed at a food product factory. She alleged that during her pregnancy her manager called her ‘fat’ and said she would need a size 22 shirt when she asked for a size 14 shirt in front of other colleagues and told a colleague who touched her belly ‘don’t do that or she will yell at you’. The complainant also claimed she was required to perform physically demanding tasks without assistance when heavily pregnant. She said she felt she had no option but to resign her employment.

The company claimed the alleged comments were made in a friendly manner and there was no discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $1,720 as an eligible termination payment and deliver training to factory staff on pregnancy discrimination.

The complainant is 67 years of age and was employed as a site supervisor at the respondent industrial technology company. He claimed that the company was proposing to reallocate one of the key responsibilities of his role to a younger employee. He also claimed his manager continually referred to him as "old man", "old fart" and "geriatric", continually asked him when he intended to retire and suggested that other employees may soon be able to apply for his job. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant his statutory entitlements and approximately $40,250, equivalent to six months’ salary. The company also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service.

The complainant was employed by the respondent government agency in the role of Senior Risk Manager. He injured his right knee, making it difficult for him to drive the long distance required to travel between work and home. The complainant claimed the agency declined his requests for adjustment, including assistance to travel to and from work or the ability to work from home. He said he felt he had no option but to access personal and annual leave and ultimately, to accept a voluntary redundancy.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $50,000.

The complainant’s ten-year-old granddaughter has a disability and uses a wheelchair and walker for mobility. The complainant, her granddaughter and other members of the family travelled on a cruise operated by the respondent cruising company. The complainant claimed there were no accessible toilet facilities on the top or pool decks. She also claimed her granddaughter was not permitted to go ashore because she was unable to walk without assistance and staff told the family she was ‘too handicapped’ and that it would present ‘too much of a liability’ to allow her ashore.

The cruise company claimed it was not informed that a passenger would be using a wheelchair as required by the terms and conditions of booking. The company advised accessible toilet facilities were available on the top and pool decks. The company confirmed the complainant’s granddaughter was unable to go ashore because it was deemed unsafe for her to board the tender boats required for shore access.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the cruise company pay the complainant $3,000.

The complainant is Filipino and was placed by the respondent labour-hire company at a government department. He claimed another independent contractor at the department made comments to him such as 'it’s just because you're Filipino' and 'it reminded me of you, you know, the Filipinos who live in the slums', and called him 'Charlie'. The complainant’s contract at the department ended before he lodged a complaint with the Commission.

On being made aware of the complaint, the labour-hire company indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the labour-hire company pay the complainant approximately $850, equivalent to one week’s wages, and provide him with access to its employee assistance program for free counselling/support.

The complainant was employed as an accountant at the respondent mining company. She said she had a flexible working arrangement to work three days per week and finish each day at 5.00 pm so she could collect her daughter from childcare. She claimed that despite the flexible working arrangement, her manager verbally reprimanded her for leaving work at 5.00 pm and placed her under performance management. She also claimed that the company made her redundant after she made a complaint to this Commission.

The company claimed it held genuine concerns about the complainant’s performance unrelated to her family responsibilities or flexible work arrangement. The company claimed the process that resulted in the complainant’s redundancy began before the complainant made her complaint to the Commission and the complainant’s position was selected for redundancy by someone unaware of the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages, deliver anti-discrimination training to all staff and leadership training to all managers and implement a flexible work guideline incorporating the ability to work from home and access time in lieu.

The complainant alleged the respondent pharmacy terminated her employment a few days after she commenced working as a pharmacy assistant because of her criminal record. She said she disclosed her criminal record during the recruitment process and wrote to the pharmacy explaining the circumstances surrounding her criminal record once a criminal record check was completed. However, she claimed the pharmacy never met with her to discuss her criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of assault, assault occasioning bodily harm and entering a property without lawful excuse.

The pharmacy claimed the complainant’s criminal record was incompatible with the inherent requirements of her role, which included delivering customer service to vulnerable customers, working with minimal supervision and providing a safe workplace, 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the pharmacy pay the complainant $700, review its recruitment process to include a narrower question inviting applicants to discuss any criminal record and write to her apologising for the distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant has an ambulatory disability and is unable to safely walk on soft or uneven ground. He alleged he was unable to access a local bus stop because it was located on a grass slope. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the local council to seek approval to relocate the bus stop to a more evenly graded location on the same street and to place a cement slab between the footpath and kerb for commuters to stand on.

The complainant is Welsh and was employed on a contract by the respondent industry association. He alleged a colleague made disparaging comments to him about Wales, Welsh people and the Welsh language, including ‘your culture and language are dead and worthless’, ‘Welsh children...should be beaten at school’ and ‘you're a sheepshagger’. He said he made a complaint to HR but no action was taken and he felt he had no option but to resign.

The industry association claimed the complainant directed comments of a similar nature towards the colleague referred to in the complaint, who was English, in the context of workplace banter. The association claimed it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace and as such could not be held responsible for the actions of the colleague.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the industry association pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages and write to him acknowledging his disappointment with the manner in which the association responded to his internal complaint.

The complainant is a teenager and alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by asking her how much he would have to pay her to have sex with him, whether she masturbated and whether she had ever had an orgasm. She also alleged he offered to buy her a vibrator. She said she made a complaint to a senior manager, but he took no action and allowed the conduct to continue. She also alleged that when she made a complaint to HR her manager contacted her and tried to intimidate her so she would withdraw her complaint. The complainant said she had not returned to work because she felt unsafe.

 

The retailer argued the conduct was not sexual harassment because it was not unwelcome and claimed the complainant engaged in conduct of a sexual nature at work, including making comments of a sexual nature, rating the attractiveness of men, telling her manager her nipples were pierced and telling him she would have sex with him. The retailer claimed it investigated the complainant’s allegations, offered her a transfer to a different outlet and took disciplinary action against her manager. The retailer advised the senior manager to whom the complainant had made the complaint had since left the business for unrelated reasons. 

The complaint was resolved and the parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The retailer agreed to pay the complainant approximately $40,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and deliver training on sexual harassment to its staff. The complainant’s former manager and senior manager agreed to write to the complainant apologising for any distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant is 54 years of age and applied for a position with the respondent company. He said he had extensive experience with the company and claimed he and the company had an agreement that his application would be considered favourably. He alleged his application was ultimately unsuccessful and a younger person was appointed to the role.

The company said it followed the usual recruitment process and appointed applicants of a range of ages to the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $5,000.