Conciliation Register

The complainant has a back and leg injury and anxiety and has a carer. She advised she lived in public housing that was not appropriate for someone with her disability and could not appropriately accommodate a carer. She alleged the public housing provider failed to action her request for appropriate housing.

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

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was offered accommodation that was appropriate for her disability and need for a carer.

 

The complainant is legally blind and was studying at the respondent university. She alleged reading material was not provided to her in a format accessible to her.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university convert all materials available in PDF format to Word format, which is accessible to the complainant using screen reading software.

 

The complainant is 71 years of age and a long-term customer of the respondent bank. He made enquiries about obtaining a home-loan to enable him to buy an investment property which may later become his home. He alleged he was told it was the bank’s policy not to offer home loans to persons over 70 years of age without taking into account his ability to repay the loan. The complainant received a superannuation pension and owned significant assets.

 

The bank claimed that the complainant was ineligible to proceed with a loan application due to his income and the potential for the loan to place him into financial hardship. The bank claimed that providing a loan to the complainant would not be considered responsible lending.  

The complaint was resolved. The bank acknowledged that its staff did not ask for, or collect, all relevant information before making an assessment about the complainant's request and apologised for his experience. The bank undertook to offer the relevant staff member additional training and to ensure that all staff are aware of their obligations when assessing loan applications. It was also agreed that the branch manager would contact the complainant directly to discuss the information needed to ensure a thorough assessment of his request. 

The complainant purchased some items at an outlet of the respondent charity. He claimed a store attendant asked him where he was from. He alleged that when he informed her he was from China, she made comments to the effect that 'the Chinese are doing lots of nasty things to the world' and 'Chinese are disgusting'. 

The respondent charity said the person involved had a different recollection of the conversation but admitted making comments of a political nature about the Chinese government. The charity said that such comments were contrary to its code of conduct and it therefore terminated the person's engagement as a volunteer with the charity.

The complaint was resolved. The charity apologised to the complainant for the incident and agreed to pay him $1,000 as general damages.

The complainant said he was initially denied entry to a club operated by the respondent company because he was wearing a sleeveless top. He changed into a shirt with sleeves in order to be admitted into the club premises. He said once in the club, he observed many women wearing sleeveless garments. The complainant said the club manager responded to his feedback on the issue by confirming he had not previously met the club’s dress code.

The company advised it operated a number of licenced club premises with unique and independent licencing and trading conditions and independent management. The company said that the club the complainant attended had ceased to operate and therefore amending the dress regulations for that club was obsolete. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company change the dress code requirements for its other clubs.

The complainant is 70 years of age and has a chronic eye condition. He alleged that following a restructure, the Chairman of the company told him his role as Chief Financial Officer would be made redundant because of his age and vision impairment and to allow the company to recruit someone younger. He alleged he was pressured for his redundancy to be announced as his retirement even though he did not wish to retire.

The respondents denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages and buy back his shares in the company, which were worth approximately $41,000.

The complainant has a number of disabilities, including a vision impairment. She claimed that she was unable to independently access the respondent government agency's online services because the agency required her to sign in using a security code provided by text message instead of the previously used security questions. The complainant claimed she was unable to use a smart phone to access the security code before it expired because of her disability. 

On being informed of the complaint, the government agency agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the government agency to provide the complainant with face-to-face assistance to complete the required paperwork and to offer this assistance in the future as needed.

The complainant is Sikh and Punjabi and wears a turban over his unshorn hair. He alleged the respondent university required him to wear the graduation trencher hat in order to participate in his graduation ceremony. The complainant said he could not fit the trencher over his turban and could not remove the turban for religious and practical reasons. He alleged university staff were rude and disrespectful towards him. He said he was eventually permitted to participate in his graduation ceremony without wearing a trencher hat but was deeply affected by the experience.

The university denied unlawfully discriminating against the complainant. The university advised it took a number of actions in response to the complainant’s allegations, including updating its graduation attire policy to remove the requirement for a trencher to be worn. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university write to the complainant apologising for his experience, pay him $1,500 and offer him counselling sessions up to a value of $3,000 over 24 months. The university also agreed to undertake a consultation process on inclusion of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The complainant alleged the respondent golf club discriminated against her on the basis of sex by removing early morning tee off timeslots for a women's golf competition while not doing so for the equivalent men’s gold competition. She also alleged she was victimised for the raising the issue with the club.

The club said that the decision to remove the early tee off time slots for the women’s golf competition was based on the financial and practical needs of the club. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the golf club reinstate the early morning tee off time slots for the women's competition, and that a review of these time slots would be conducted at the conclusion on the golfing competition season. 

The complainant’s partner is blind and uses a guide dog. The complainant alleged the respondent airport did not have safe and convenient facilities for the watering and toileting of the guide dog.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airport will progressively build three indoor assistance animal relief areas at different terminals within the airport, with appropriate amenities including a dry and weatherproof ground surface, fencing, rubbish bins and signage.

The complainant has macula degeneration, which causes vision loss. The respondent transportation company terminated the complainant’s employment as an engineer at the end of his probation period. The complainant alleged the company failed to provide him with timely feedback on his performance and failed to provide him with adjustments to enable him to perform the inherent requirements of his job, including failing to commission an occupational health assessment. The complainant acknowledged the company expressed concerns about his performance but claimed any performance issues could have been addressed had he received timely feedback and adjustments to accommodate his disability.

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 approximately $34,200 as an ex-gratia payment and provide him with a statement of service. The company also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the events giving rise to his complaint and outlining the changes the company intended to implement in response to his experience in the workplace.

The complainant alleged the respondent club told him he was not permitted to use his mobility scooter inside club premises and would need to leave it at the club entrance. He said the club offered him the use of a wheelchair, but this was not suitable as he is unable to walk without assistance or transfer to and from the wheelchair independently. He alleged that despite being informed of this, the club insisted that he was not permitted to use his mobility scooter inside club premises. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the club to revise the terms and conditions of entry for patrons who use mobility scooters and/or motorised wheelchairs to alleviate the impacts of the disability. Patrons with mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs would be granted access to club premises so long as they: 

* Operate the mobility scooter or wheelchair in a safe manner 

* Not travel faster than walking pace when inside the Club or within a crowded area to avoid ‘overtaking’ of patrons who are walking  

* Avoid distractions such as headphones, mobile phones or other electronic devices when operating the mobility scooter or wheelchair  

* Slow down and take care when turning around corners.  

The club advised that patrons using mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs who do not abide by these requirements may be asked to leave. 

The complainant's 13-year-old son has autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The complainant alleged one local public high school refused to enrol his son and that another delayed his enrolment for five months. He also alleged the public high school his son attended did not provide him with adjustments to accommodate his disabilities and this failure resulted in his son being suspended on multiple occasions, being isolated from his class and being unable to play with his peers. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The department responsible for the operation of the schools agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The high school the complainant’s son attended agreed to facilitate a more active parental involvement, implement new educational objectives and a new positive behaviour reward system for the complainant’s son.

The complainant has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and social anxiety and worked as a storeman with the respondent company. He said he informed his manager of his disability and its potential impact on his interactions with others. He alleged his manager responded in a dismissive manner to his disclosure and later failed to respond to his concerns that colleagues were reacting negatively when he disclosed or tried to explain the nature of his disability. The company stood the complainant down following an incident at a company social event and terminated his employment at the conclusion of the probation period.

The company said the complainant behaved in a manner that placed himself and others at risk during a company social event. The company said the complainant's behaviour was contrary to company values and the employment relationship was therefore not sustainable.

The complaint was resolved. The company agreed to pay the complainant $5,000 as an Eligible Termination Payment, to characterise the end of the employment as a resignation and to provide him with a reference.

 

The complainant’s son has autism and has an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent motel refused her booking on the basis that it does not allow pets or animals in the motel.

The motel confirmed it did not accept animals and agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved after the motel confirmed in writing that assistance animals would be welcomed at the motel in future.