Conciliation Register

The complainant has a physical disability, uses a walker and is unable to climb up and down stairs. She visited the respondent clinic for a blood test but was unable to access the building because there are steps leading to the entrance and no ramp access. She claimed the clinic did not provide her with assistance to enter the building or offer an alternative way to conduct the blood test.

The clinic advised that it owns the building and confirmed there is no ramp access. The clinic said an application had been made to council to install a ramp but given the building is heritage listed, the conditions Council placed on approval would have imposed an unjustifiable hardship on the business. The clinic advised services can be delivered to registered patients unable to access the clinic in their homes but the complainant was seeking a service from another provider located in the same building.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the clinic seek advice from a town planner about the feasibility of building a ramp in accordance with Council guidelines and install a ramp subject to Council approval and financial considerations.

The complainant’s son has major depression and generalised anxiety disorder, which can manifest as self-harming behaviour and suicidal tendencies. The complainant’s son was a year 11 student at the respondent private school, which was aware of his disability and provided adjustments, including accommodating low attendance and allowing him to complete work outside the counsellor’s office. The complainant claimed that ten days before a scheduled school overseas trip, the respondent principal withdrew permission for the complainant’s son to undertake the trip because of his low school attendance. The complainant also claimed the school had recently failed to properly accommodate her son’s disability and the school counsellor had made adverse comments about her son’s disability.

On being advised of the complaint the school and its principal agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $4,000 as general damages and the principal write to the complainant’s son expressing regret for any distress he experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant has a medical condition causing inflamatory back pain and had previously been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. He was employed as a disability support worker with the respondent community organisation on a fulltime permanent basis. The complainant claimed the organisation sent him a warning letter regarding excessive absences from work shortly after he started an approved period of leave without pay to manage his psychosocial disability. He claimed the organisation terminated his employment after he refused an offer to work on a casual basis.

The organisation claimed the complainant had a history of unplanned absences from the workplace over at least a 12 month period and this was having a significant and unsustainable impact on the service’s operations. The organisation claimed it attempted to accommodate the complainant’s disability by offering him an opportunity to work on a casual basis but the complainant refused this offer.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant $2,500 as general damages.

The complainant is 68 years of age and was employed as a helicopter pilot with the respondent government agency. He claimed he was asked about his retirement plans, told that he was 'getting past his used by date' and told he should think about moving on. He also claimed the agency prevented him from flying because of alleged concerns about the impact of a vision impairment on his ability to pilot a helicopter safely.

The agency claimed concerns were held about the complainant's ability to safely perform his role and denied that the complainant’s age or disability were factors in decisions regarding his employment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $50,000 nett. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant is 75 years of age and had been employed by the respondent club as a fulltime carpenter for about 18 years. He claimed that, after the Human Resources Manager became aware of his age, the club falsely accused him of breaching work safety rules and proposed to cut his hours with a view to transitioning him into retirement. He claimed that after he was accused of another safety incident, the club offered a package to end his employment, his manager made a comment about his age, and the club pressured him to resign.

The club claimed the complainant had been counselled about four safety breaches in the previous 12 months. The club said a meeting was held with the complainant and a union representative and it was agreed that the complainant would resign.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club pay the complainant $4,500 gross and provide him with a statement of service.

The complainant is from New Zealand and holds a Special Category Visa (SCV). He claimed the respondent home loan provider declined his application for a home loan because of his status as a temporary resident.

The home loan provider advised applicants must be Australian citizens or permanent residents to be eligible for its home loans. Then the home loan provider said applications from 'protected' SCV holders (New Zealand citizens who arrived in Australia before 2001) would be considered, but the complainant did not fit this category. The home loan provider claimed this requirement was imposed because such applicants posed less of a credit risk.

The complainant was resolved with an agreement that the home loan provider change its lending policy to deem New Zealand citizens holding an SCV, irrespective of their date of arrival in Australia, eligible to apply for a home loan and to provide information about this policy change on its website. The home loan provider also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the events giving rise to his complaint.

The complainant worked as a waitress at the respondent fast food restaurant. She alleged that the owner sexually harassed her including by sending her a text message asking her if she wanted to ‘try a new banana’ while her boyfriend was away, asking her out and propositioning her to have sex with him for money. The complainant resigned before lodging the complaint with the Commission.

On being notified of the complaint the restaurant owner agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant $1,000. The restaurant owner also agreed to provide the complainant with a written apology and undertake training about sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

The complainant was employed by an international not-for-profit organisation as a project manager. She alleged that shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy, her position was made redundant. She claimed the organisation told her that the fundraising team she was working in would be abolished as part of an organisational restructure. She alleged that prior to disclosing her pregnancy she had been told there would be on going work opportunities for her notwithstanding any organisational restructure.

The organisation claimed the complainant's sex and pregnancy had no bearing on the decision to make her position redundant. The organisation noted it had supported the complainant throughout two previous pregnancies, offering her significant flexibility upon her return to work in both instances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation provide the complainant with a written reference and pay her approximately $7,750, equivalent to eight weeks' pay.

The complainant was employed as a security officer with the respondent entertainment company. She claimed that a male security officer sexually harassed her by sending her romantic poetry by text message, befriending her on a social networking site and saying things to her like 'I love you' and 'You are my wife'. She said she made an internal complaint about the conduct and while the company told her some of her allegations were substantiated she was not provided with written information about the outcome of the investigation and the company continued to place her on the same rostered hours as the other officer. She said she felt unable to return to the workplace.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and provide her with a letter outlining the findings of its internal investigation. The individual respondent agreed to provide the complainant with a written apology stating it was never his intention to upset or harass her. It was also agreed that the complainant would return to work, subject to medical clearance.

The complainant was employed by the respondent building company. She claimed that while she was at work, the owner/director of the company filmed her underpants, buttocks and thighs with his mobile phone without her knowledge or consent.

On being advised of the complaint the owner/director indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the owner/director of the company would pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages.

The complainant is African-American and worked on a casual basis as a sales associate with the respondent retailer. He alleged that a manager made offensive comments to him in the workplace because of his race. He claimed the retailer reduced his shifts after he complained about this treatment and eventually forced him to resign.

The retailer said the manager denied making any offensive comments and there was no record of any internal complaint about the alleged conduct. The retailer claimed the complainant was counselled about poor performance and chose to resign.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer  pay the complainant $3,500 as an eligible termination payment.

The complainant was employed with the respondent college. He claimed that on the basis of a suspected disability he was directed to stand down from his job, required to attend an independent medical assessment and his special leave payments were discontinued.



On being advised of the complaint the college indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would accept a voluntary redundancy. The college agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 in compensation for legal costs and also provide him with $5,000 worth of outplacement assistance. The college also agreed that publication of the redundancy in the college's newsletter would include a positive statement about the complainant's employment.

The complainant has depression and anxiety and worked for the respondent government agency on a contract basis. She claimed the agency would not not allow her to work part-time as an accomodation for her disability and therefore she felt she had no option but to resign.

The agency claimed that working full-time was an inherent requirement of the complainant’s position.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $7,500 compensation and advise all employees of their obligations under federal disability discrimination legislation by including a link to these obligations on its intranet.

The complainant uses a motorised wheelchair and claimed that when he booked a ticket with the respondent low-cost airline he was told he would need to disconnect his wheelchair battery during the flight. He said he bought a device to disconnect the wheelchair battery at a cost of $650, but on the day of travel was required to remove the battery and leave it behind. The complainant said this meant his wheelchair was not functional on arrival overseas and he was confined to his hotel room for a week while a replacement battery was sourced.

The airline said it is not certified to carry certain types of wheelchair batteries because they are classified as dangerous goods. The airline said this information is available on its website and was discussed with the complainant when he booked his ticket. However, the airline acknowledged there may have been some miscommunication or misunderstanding about how the policy may apply to the complainant’s circumstances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline pay the complainant $5,000 compensation for the cost of his return ticket, the device he purchased and the loss of enjoyment on his holiday.

The complainant said that after 17 months of employment as a billing officer with the respondent public health service she was required to undergo a criminal record check. She said her employment was subsequently terminated because of her criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of a number of offences over a 13 year period ending three years prior, including obtaining money by deception, dishonesty causing risk of loss, embezzlement and obtaining financial advantage.

The health service said the complainant’s role involved unsupervised access to account holders’ financial information, including banking and other account details. The health service claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the role, taking into consideration a number of factors including the recency and nature of the offences.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the health service pay the complainant approximately $2,400 as compensation and provide her with a written reference. The health service encouraged the complainant to apply for other positions in the organisation not involving access to financial information and advised that in the future, it would ensure criminal record checks were undertaken before a person commenced employment.