Conciliation Register

The complainant was pregnant and worked at the respondent training provider. She alleged the company initiated a formal performance management process because she was late to work on some occasions due to severe morning sickness. 

The complainant’s supervisor and the company denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,000 as general damages, waive debts due to accidental over payment and provide her with a statement of service. The company also agreed to review policies and training with respect to equal employment opportunity, incorporating feedback from the complainant. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant has paralysis in her right side and uses an electric wheelchair. She stayed at the respondent caravan park and alleged the accessible bathroom was not accessible to her because it had a steep, makeshift entry ramp and no horizontal grab rails in the shower. She also claimed that she was required to hold a key for the accessible bathroom by paying a refundable bond when she checked in. 

The caravan park claimed that its accessible bathroom was upgraded less than three years earlier and complied with the Australian Building Code. It claimed that the key bond policy was reasonable in the circumstances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the caravan park install a permanent low-gradient ramp leading to the accessible bathroom and install horizontal grab rails in the shower.

The complainant is Chinese and bought a discounted item on the respondent retailer’s website. He alleged that, when he attempted to return the item at one of the retailer’s outlets, a staff member said words to the effect that “you Asians” purchase discounted items only to fraudulently return them and claim the full retail price.

The retailer denied the alleged comment but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer offer the complainant a $100 voucher for use in-store and write to him acknowledging and apologising for the distress he experienced. 

 

The complainant had been employed at the respondent warehouse company for over ten years, since she was a young worker. At the time of the alleged events, she was employed as retail operations manager. The complainant alleged that one of the warehouse owners sexually harassed her throughout her employment, including by telling her she had “the best boobs”, starting at her breasts and asking to touch them and requesting “blow jobs” while pushing her head down towards his groin. She said that after she made a complaint to the company, she was moved into a different role at a different site. She said the new role was not enjoyable and did not attract as much income in penalty rates. She claimed she was aware of a number of employees who claimed to have been sexually harassed by the owner.

On being advised of the complaint, the company and owner agreed to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $100,000, comprising relevant termination payments and general damages. The company also agreed to develop policies and training relating to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

The complainant worked as a sales assistant in a liquor store owned by the respondent supermarket. He advised he took time off work to undergo treatment for cancer and injured his finger while on leave. The complainant claimed he became depressed after his manager disclosed his disability to staff and customers. He advised he was cleared to return to work on modified duties after several months of leave, but the supermarket terminated his employment.

The supermarket claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated because he was deemed unfit to perform the inherent requirements of his role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket pay the complainant $17,500 as general damages and to provide him with a statement of service. The supermarket also wrote to the complainant expressing its regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a store assistant at the respondent grocery store. She alleged the store owner sexually harassed her, including by making her take a tablet without telling her what it was, asking her about her sex life, telling her about his sex life, hugging her and kissing her on the cheek. She said she resigned because of this conduct.

On being advised of the complaint, the grocery store and its owner indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the grocery store pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and implement sexual harassment and discrimination training. The store owner agreed to undertake the training.

The complainant alleged the respondent insurer charged her family an additional 50% for travel insurance because her eight-year-old son has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer re-issue the complainant’s travel insurance policy without the additional premium. The insurer also undertook to review its assessment processes to remove additional premiums for certain pre-existing medical conditions such as ADHD.

The complainant was a member of the respondent travel club and has a mobility disability. He claimed he was unable to ascertain whether hotels and other accommodation offered by the club were accessible when booking online. He advised that, even when he contacted the club by phone, he was sometimes provided with incorrect information about accessibility of accommodation.

The travel club advised the website was operated by a third party and the club did not have control over its content. The club offered to reimburse the complainant for rooms he was unable to use and to provide him with a contact point for assistance with future bookings.

The complaint was resolved. The club undertook to establish an accessibility team to assist members with access requirements with their bookings. The club said it would promote the existence of the accessibility team through its website and by a member bulletin. The club also offered the complainant credits to be put towards future bookings over the following two years.

The complainant is blind. She claimed she was unable to access receipts and instructions for products purchased from the respondent retailer because the information was provided in print.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer:

•    Provide all invoices to the complainant in Braille

•    Add wording to its online store and all customer emails inviting customers to contact the retailer if they require information in alternative formats

•    Train staff to ask customers at the time of purchase whether they require information in alternative formats

•    Offer the complainant $250 in store credit.

The complainant was employed as an oil rig operator at the respondent oil company. She alleged male colleagues sexually harassed her over several years, including by showing pictures of their genitals, talking about their sex life and asking about hers, telling sexual jokes and touching/tickling her. She claimed that when she asked colleagues to stop she was told she was being “all rapey” and that when she reported the conduct to her manager he was dismissive, saying “boys will be boys”. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant a global sum of $150,000 comprising payments in lieu of notice, in compensation for statutory entitlements, and in compensation for future economic loss and in compensation for hurt and suffering.

The complainant has spinal muscular atrophy and uses a wheelchair. He alleged a number of theatres at the respondent cinema were not accessible to him due to stairs.

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the cinema to:

•    Ensure session information on its website included information about accessibility of the theatre in which the session was showing

•    Where possible, show a range of films in the accessible theatres

•    Update its staff training manual to include information about how to best assist patrons with disability

•    Consider the installation of domestic chair lifts. 

The complainant is 17 years of age. He claimed the respondent property management company required his partner and his father to sign a lease on his behalf because he is under 18 years of age.

On being advised of the complaint, the property management company agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the property management company release the complainant, his father and his partner from the lease before its expiry and waive associated costs. The company also agreed to waive the costs associated with the cessation of the tenancy, including bond and cleaning costs.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and has been issued with a disability parking permit by the relevant authority. She alleged the respondent parking station issued her with a contravention notice after she remained parked in an accessible parking bay longer than the allocated time. She claimed the parking station should allow persons who have disability parking permits longer parking periods than those without such permits but was told the parking station charged all those using its service the same rates.  

The parking station operator noted that many people with disability used the parking station to facilitate access to nearby medical services. It claimed placing two-hour limits on parking was reasonable to maximise access to the parking station.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the parking station convert two of its two-hour accessible parking bays to four-hour accessible parking bays. The parking station also agreed to improve signage about the location of payment points, promote its online payment system, show the complainant how to use the online payment system and forward feedback from the complainant to the provider of its payment machines.