Conciliation Register

The complainant is 70 years of age and alleged the respondent bank declined his application for a personal loan because of his age.

The bank claimed the complainant’s loan application was refused because the bank could not be satisfied that he could service the loan.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $3,500 ex-gratia.

 

The complainant has physical disability as a result of having had polio and uses a motorised wheelchair for mobility. He claimed he was unable to safely and independently exit his driveway because the kerb was not accessible. He alleged the respondent local council declined to provide an accessible travel path from his driveway to the kerb. 

The council advised it is the responsibility of a property owner to cover any costs relating to access from council property to the home.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by council to install a kerb-to-road ramp to provide access from the kerb to the complainant’s driveway. This ramp would remain council property.

The complainant’s 15-year-old daughter has a mild intellectual disability and severe language disorder and attends the respondent private high school. The complainant claimed the school had failed to make adjustments to assessments and day-to-day tasks to accommodate her daughter’s disability. She also claimed that some teachers were making inappropriate comments about her daughter’s disability and not allowing her to use the bathroom when required. The complainant also alleged that staff were not communicating appropriately with the family and this was having a negative impact on her child.

On being notified of the complaint, the school indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. In response to the complaint, the school introduced policies and procedures for accommodating the needs of students with disability and delivered training to staff on their obligations towards students with disability. The school also met with the student’s family to discuss how best to accommodate her disability.

The complaint was resolved. In addition to steps already taken, both parties made undertakings regarding ongoing communication about the complainant’s daughter’s education and disability-related needs. The school also agreed to meet with the student’s family at least twice each school year to discuss her ongoing disability and learning needs.

The complainant is Indian and alleged the respondent club denied him entry because of his race. He claimed a security guard was rude to him, said words to the effect that ‘we do not want trouble in this country’ and claimed the complainant had previously been reported to the police for disorderly behaviour at the club. The complainant claimed the security guard was unable to provide him with any evidence that he had been the person referred to and alleged the security guard was engaging in racial profiling.

The club claimed security guards did not consider the race or colour of patrons when deciding whether to grant entry to the club. The club argued the security guard would have recognised the complainant as the person previously engaging in disorderly behaviour. The club noted it employed security and other staff from a range of cultural and national backgrounds.

The complaint was resolved. The club apologised for what may have been a case of mistaken identity and because the security guard communicated with the complainant. The club undertook to deliver training to security and other staff on culturally appropriate communication and customer service, using the complainant’s experience as a case study. The club also undertook to keep better records of persons banned from the club and to meet with the security company to discuss the issues raised in the complaint and how to avoid similar incidents in the future.

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 was offered employment at the respondent logistics corporation. She said she informed the company of her pregnancy at interview and sought leave to begin ten weeks after her role started in order to have her baby. The complainant alleged that she was told she was not welcome at the company and that the company terminated her employment on the basis that she abandoned her employment.

The company claimed there was a dispute between the parties and the complainant stopped attending work. The company claimed it had no option but to terminate the complainant’s employment due to non-attendance.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company offer the complainant the role for which she successfully applied and make adjustments to her attendance at the workplace to accommodate her family responsibilities.

The complainant’s son has an acquired brain injury, intellectual disability, autism, Opposition & Defiance Disorder and other impairments and attended the respondent public high school. The complainant alleged the school did not appropriately support her son, failed to develop or implement a behaviour support plan, refused her request for a teacher’s aide and suspended her son on several occasions without warning for behaviour associated with his disability. The complainant removed her son from the school before lodging the complaint with the Commission.

On being advised of the complaint, the School agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The school advised that, in response to the complaint, staff involved in some of the alleged events attended training on supporting students with disability and the school made improvements to procedures to ensure timely discussion of problems with parents. The school also undertook to improve processes for transitioning students with disability from primary to high school and to facilitate communication between parents of students with disability and teachers.

The complainant’s five-year-old son has Autism Spectrum Disorder, anxiety, panic attacks and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The complainant claimed his son’s school, the respondent private school, treated him less favourably because of behaviour associated with his disability, including by locking him out of the classroom, making him transfer sand from one end of the school to another and suspending him pending provision of medical clearance for him to return. The complainant claimed the school’s conduct aggravated his son’s behaviours. The school ultimately asked him to withdraw his son from the school on the basis that he would be expelled otherwise.

On being advised of the complaint the school indicated a willingness to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $12,000 and write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The school also agreed to publish its policies on its website and to list all training and professional development undertaken by staff in its annual reports.

The complainant attended an interview with the respondent recruitment agency for a role in aged care. She claimed she was assured of ongoing paid employment and purchased a uniform on the day. The complainant alleges that, after she disclosed her criminal record, the agency stopped contacting her and ultimately told her she was unsuitable for the role. The complainant had been charged with assault with a weapon, but no conviction was recorded.

The recruitment agency claimed the complainant’s criminal record was not a factor in its decision not to offer the complainant the role and claimed other issues arose during the recruitment process which rendered the complainant unsuitable. The agency acknowledged this was not clearly communicated to the complainant. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant return the uniform and be reimbursed approximately $80 for the cost of the uniform and other costs associated with attending the interview. The agency also wrote to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant has a hearing impairment and requires the assistance of the National Relay Service (NRS) to communicate by telephone. He claimed that on one occasion when he contacted the respondent bank with the assistance of NRS, the bank refused to discuss his accounts with him, and that on another occasion, he was asked exhaustive security questions and questions about his disability. The complainant alleged the bank refused to assist him, froze his accounts and told him he would have to telephone the bank directly to resolve the matter.

The bank said that it has a number of security measures in place to protect its customers’ bank accounts against fraud by third parties. The bank claimed these processes did not subject customers who have a hearing impairment or are deaf to greater scrutiny than other customers using third parties to access accounts. The bank said staff received training on communicating with different services that may be used by its customers and on appropriate questioning of customers. The bank claimed that, as a result of the complaint, additional coaching and counselling meetings were held with relevant staff.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank apologise to the complainant for his experience, seek his feedback on how it could improve its services to him in the future and deposit $250 into his account to be donated to a charity of his choice.

The complainant was pregnant and worked for the respondent café. She alleged that, in response to a request for her roster, her boss sent her a text message saying 'due to your pregnancy I cannot give you any shifts at the moment'. 

The café’s owner said the complainant had been complaining of tiredness and need for breaks and he held concerns for her safety and the safety of her unborn child. The café’s owner said he had previously been unaware of legislation regarding pregnancy discrimination. As a result of becoming aware of his legal obligations, he indicated the complainant was welcome to return to work immediately.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the café pay the complainant $3,000. The complainant did not wish to return to work at the café, so the parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

 

The complainant is blind and alleged she was unable to enter a competition advertised by the respondent television station because contestants were required to call a phone number and say a code word displayed on the screen with no audible equivalent.

On being advised of the complaint, the television station indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the television station write to the complainant apologising for falling short of best practice. The television station also undertook to raise the issue in upcoming staff newsletters and training sessions.