Conciliation Register

The complainant identifies as non-binary and sought to have their gender identifier with two government agencies changed to ‘X’ and honorific changed to ‘MX’. The complainant said that neither agency would change their gender to ‘X’ or their honorific to ‘MX’. The complainant said one agency agreed to change their gender marker to ‘M’, which they prefer to ‘F’ and offered to have no honorific. The complainant said they found this very distressing and that they felt uncomfortable accessing services due to the way gender was identified in their records. 

The agencies advised they were taking steps to introduce ‘X’ as a gender marker in their system, but given the complexity of this task, this may take some time.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that both agencies change the complainant’s gender marker to ‘M’ until ‘X’ is available. The agencies also agreed that certain staff members would be required to undergo refresher training on gender identity discrimination. The agencies agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant is blind and requires sighted assistance to fill out and sign print application forms. He said that he requested assistance from the respondent bank to fill out an investment growth bond application form and was told he would be charged a fee of $2,600. 

The bank said there had been miscommunication on the issue and explained the fee quoted to the complainant was a fee for financial advice and not for assistance to fill out an investment growth application form.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.  

The complainant’s son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and has an assistance dog to help him manage the effects of his disability. She alleged the respondent motel refused a booking for the family if her son was accompanied by his assistance dog. 

On being notified of the complaint, the motel agreed to participate in a conciliation process. 

The complaint was resolved after the motel acknowledged its obligations with respect to guests with assistance animals under anti-discrimination laws and updated its website to say that guests with assistance animals are welcome.

The complainant was a public housing tenant. She alleged she was not offered interpreting services and was therefore unable to raise concerns about her housing, including the behaviour of neighbours.

The relevant government department confirmed there had been difficulties associated with providing the complainant with an interpreter but denied this constituted racial discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be offered a different apartment on a top floor in order to avoid potential problems with neighbours.

 

The complainant applied for a coordinator position with the respondent retirement village. She alleged the recruitment officer asked her if she had children and commented that a staff member with children sometimes took time off due to the needs of the children.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retirement village write to the complainant apologising for the incident, develop a policy on equality of opportunity in employment and ensure staff are aware of the policy. The retirement village also undertook that its staff would not ask similar questions in future recruitment processes.

The complainant was employed as a sales representative with the respondent telecommunications company. She alleged the CEO made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature, including about her clothes, her sex-life and menopause. She alleged the CEO’s conduct contributed to a sexually hostile working environment.

The respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complainant was made redundant prior to the conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $73,000.

The complainant experiences chronic lower-back joint pain, depression, and anxiety and at times uses a walking stick. She worked as a driver for the respondent government department and claimed that the department did not provide her with an accessible parking space, asked her not to use her walking stick and did not otherwise accommodate her disability. She also alleged colleagues bullied her because of her disability.

The department denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The department agreed to pay the complainant $18,000. The department also agreed to introduce a number of training and policy initiatives including the introduction of disability confidence training for management, a revision of existing training to include disability and discrimination training for all staff and measures to ensure better dissemination of complaints handling information internally, greater accessibility to policies for all staff and better visibility of contact information for the internal diversity officer. 

The complainant is Chinese and was working on a landscaping job at a client's residential address. He claimed the respondent, who is his client's neighbour, approached him and complained about the type of trees being planted and the conversation became heated. The complainant alleged the respondent shouted at him 'Don't let me see you here again! Get f**king out of my country you liar'.

The respondent denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent does not approach or address the complainant and raise any concerns about the landscaping with the complainant’s client.

The complainant had a contract with the respondent labour-hire agency. She alleged the agency did not put her forward for placements or inform her of upcoming opportunities after she informed the agency she was pregnant.

The agency denied the allegations of discrimination but agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $8,000 and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant uses a walking frame to aid mobility. She advised the respondent sporting team moved to a new venue and patrons were required to use stairs to access front row seating. She claimed she had previously been allowed to pass through a restricted secure area to access seating, but this arrangement was no longer available.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent allow the complainant alternative access to the front row, accessible seating.

 

The complainant has anxiety and depression. She is enrolled in a bachelor’s degree with the respondent university and resides in student accommodation. The complainant said that the university had previously accommodated her need to take time off her studies to manage her disability. However, she claimed the university had recently started a ‘show cause’ process due to an unsuccessful year of study which could result in her being excluded from the university for five years. She claimed the university did not give due consideration to medical evidence about the impact of her disability on her studies and resulting need for reasonable adjustment.

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

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to apply the complainant’s late withdrawals retrospectively, so she did not fail subjects. The university agreed to allow the complainant to defer her studies, beyond the standard referral period if required. The university also undertook to prioritise the complainant’s application for accommodation on campus.

The complainant is blind and unable to read information on signs and notification screens. He alleged he was refused sighted-guide assistance at a station to enable him to find and make his way to a platform.

The respondent public transport provider considered that its station staff and conductors offer passengers with disability sufficient assistance to access station facilities, including locating train platforms.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the transport provider to update its website to include information about direct assistance, incorporating feedback from the complainant. The transport provider also undertook to update its app to state that information is subject to change and passengers should approach station staff for the most up-to-date information and for any requests for assistance. Finally, the transport provider agreed to deliver training on direct assistance and disability awareness to frontline staff at the station.

 

The complainant is blind. His employer offered him the opportunity to participate in a postgraduate leadership program delivered by the respondent not-for-profit organisation. The complainant said he informed the organisation of his disability on enrolment and requested adjustments to accommodate his disability, including the provision of reading materials in an accessible format. The complainant alleged the organisation failed to provide him with printed materials in an accessible format and required him to participate in group activities being hosted on an online platform that was not accessible to his screen reading software. He also alleged the organisation refused to allow him to enrol in other core subjects.

The organisation claimed it provided reasonable adjustments to accommodate the Complainant’s disability. The organisation said the online learning platform was a new platform and the complainant did not advise the organisation of any difficulties he was experiencing in accessing the platform unless prompted.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation develop and publish a disability action plan and make a financial contribution to a literature review assessing leadership pathways for people with disability in the Complainant’s profession.

The complainant has a hearing impairment and alleged the respondent subscription broadcaster did not offer closed captions, meaning he was unable to access programs.

The broadcaster advised it was in the process of introducing closed captioning in its broadcasts. The broadcaster indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the broadcaster offer the complainant free access to captioned programming on a related broadcasting service until closed captions are available.

The complainant has anxiety and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, as well as other medical conditions. He applied for total and permanent disability, income protection and life insurance with the respondent insurer through the respondent superannuation fund. The complainant alleged his application for life insurance was originally approved with certain exclusions and his applications for total and permanent disability and income protection insurance were originally declined because of his disability. The complainant alleges that after he provided additional information about his disability, the insurer removed the exclusions to his life insurance policy and issued him with total and permanent disability and income protection insurance policies with a blanket mental health exclusion. The complainant claimed his mental health issues were well managed and had not resulted in him being unable to work at any point.

The insurer claimed that its decisions were based on statistical and actuarial data on which it was reasonable to rely and that its decisions were therefore not unlawful.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $10,000 and commit to the ongoing training of staff on mental health issues. The insurer also agreed to refund the complainant the cost of his policies to date should he wish to change insurance providers by a specified date. The insurer and superannuation fund agreed to write to the complainant apologising that his customer experience had not met his expectations.