Conciliation Register

The complainant advised that her assistance animal has been accredited by the appropriate state government authority in her home state and she is allowed to travel with her dog on public transport within her home state. The complainant proposed to travel interstate with her assistance animal. She claimed the respondent interstate government authority told her that the card from her home state allowing her to travel on public transport with her assistance animal would not be honoured and she would not be issued with an equivalent card from the state she was travelling to.

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

The complaint was resolved. The government authority issued the complainant with a pass enabling her to travel on public transport with her assistance animal. The government authority also undertook to implement changes to enable the honouring of interstate cards allowing passengers to travel on public transport with assistance animals and to facilitate the issuing of a local travel pass to those in possession of an equivalent interstate pass where appropriate.

The complainant’s son has cerebral palsy and sought to enter the respondent club with friends to celebrate his birthday. The complainant alleged the club denied her son entry because he was ‘a liability’.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club write to the complainant’s son apologising for the incident and reassuring him that patrons who use wheelchairs are welcome at the club. The club also undertook to improve its standard of customer service.

 

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.

The complainant’s 15-year-old son attended a public high school catering to students with disability with particular learning requirements. She alleged the school failed to provide adjustments to accommodate her son’s learning and behavioural needs. She also alleged the school failed to notify the authorities when her son went missing during a school camp, which she argued would have occurred if a child without disability went missing. The complainant’s mother had enrolled him at a different public school before lodging the complaint.

On being advised of the complaint, the relevant government department and the school agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department pay the complainant $10,000 and write to her acknowledging and expressing regret about her frustration and dissatisfaction with her son’s education at the school. The department also advised an investigation would be conducted into the school’s response to her son going missing during a school camp.

The complainant sought to enrol her two youngest children at the respondent K-12 private school, which their older siblings already attended. She alleged the school refused her daughter’s enrolment because she has autism without taking steps to assess her support needs and refused to enrol her brother because of his association with her.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school revise its enrolment policy and process with a view to improving time frames, communication with families and collection and assessment of information regarding prospective students. The school principal agreed to write to the complainant and her children apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint. The school also agreed to organise a fundraising activity to raise awareness about autism and to donate proceeds and the equivalent of the fees for enrolment application to an agreed autism charity.

The complainant was employed as a seasonal factory hand with the respondent beverage company. She alleged that a colleague sexually harassed her, including by looking at her body in a way that made her feel uncomfortable, saying that she had a beautiful name and making kissing noises towards her. The complainant said she sent the company an email making a complaint about the alleged conduct but received no response. She said there was no female staff member to whom she could report the conduct.

The company claimed it was not informed of the alleged conduct until being notified of the complaint to the Commission. The company advised that, in response to the complaint, management met with staff to discuss sexual harassment and steps were being taken to ensure complaints of sexual harassment are appropriately responded to.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company make a $4,000 donation to a charity assisting women, apologise to the complainant for her experience and update its induction pack to include information about the internal complaint process in cases of alleged sexual harassment.

The complainant is Aboriginal and went to the respondent hotel for a meal. She claimed a crowd controller required her to undertake a breath test for alcohol but did not require non-Aboriginal patrons to undergo the test.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $50 as a refund of the cost of her meal, implement cultural awareness training for staff and prominently display signage regarding the hotel’s commitment to non-discrimination. The hotel also agreed to brief crowd controllers on the concerns raised in the complaint.

The complainant worked for the respondent not-for-profit fitness and sporting organisation. He alleged a male colleague sexually harassed him by making inappropriate comments, rubbing his groin against the complainant's leg while saying ‘I'm humping you’, making sexual comments and unwanted physical contact such as hugs. 

The organisation denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the organisation agreed to pay the complainant $25,000 as compensation for hurt and distress.

The complainant has anxiety and owns a home in a strata complex. He claimed he was unable to attend meetings of the respondent body corporate, which were held at residents’ homes, because of his disability. He claimed the body corporate declined his requests for meetings to be held offsite to accommodate his disability.

The body corporate confirmed requests by the complainant to hold meetings offsite were declined, but claimed it was unaware of the complainant’s disability. The body corporate claimed that holding meetings offsite would be very expensive and impose an unjustifiable hardship on it.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant participate in future meetings by phone.