Conciliation Register

The complainant was a student of the respondent vocational training body. She alleged the training body informed her that due to her pregnancy, she would not be permitted to participate in a module with potentially distressing content, and that she could not complete three mandatory practical components of the course until six months post-partum. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the training body to change its policy to enable pregnant students to participate in the module that contained potentially distressing content subject to students signing a waiver confirming their awareness of the subject matter and potential for distress. The training body also undertook that while pregnant students would not be able to complete practical modules of the course in their last trimester for safety reasons, their ability to do so post-partum would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The complainant’s six-year-old son has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder and developmental delay. The complainant alleged the respondent independent school did not allow her son to attend the first week of kindergarten because he may scare other children and then would only allow him to attend school for three hours per day. The complainant also alleged that the school did not accommodate her son’s disability in the classroom, did not make allowances for her son’s disability when applying disciplinary policy and did not develop an individual plan for her son. The complainant’s son was ultimately suspended and the complainant removed him from the school. 

On being notified of the complaint, the school denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $25,000. The complainant agreed to take down negative social media content she had posted about the school.

The complainant has memory loss. He said he sought to import his mobile phone number with the respondent telecommunications provider to a different provider. He said he was unsuccessful because personal information held by the two providers did not match. The complainant alleged that when he contacted the respondent to address the issue, he was required to answer a number of personal questions to establish ownership of the account. As the complainant could not recall the answers to the questions, he was unable to establish ownership of the account. 

On being notified of the complaint, the telecommunications provider denied unlawful discrimination but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved once the telecommunications provider established the complainant was the owner of the account. The provider agreed to offer the complainant a free one-year phone plan.

The complainant works as a software support officer at the respondent company. He said that his son has a learning disability, asthma and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and needs a lot of one-to-one support and tuition. He alleged the company denied his request for a small reduction in working hours a few days a week to enable him to attend appointments and that a manager told him 'this is not a child care' and that it would affect the productivity of the team. He alleged he was singled out and required to take breaks at specific times.

The company said the complainant’s request could not be accommodated due to operational requirements. The company denied the alleged comment and said that all staff were required to take breaks for health and safety reasons.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant work from home for a set period. As the complainant would not need to travel to and from work, he would be able to take his son to appointments without changes to his working hours.

The complainant was employed on a casual basis as a driver for a goods transport company. She alleged that when her partner told the operations manager that she was pregnant, he said words to the effect that "we can't have pregnant chicks working here" and she was not offered any more work.

The company denied that the alleged statement was made and said the complainant was not offered work because there was no work available that met her requirements with regard to hours of work and type of vehicle used.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,650 as an Employee Termination Payment and develop a workplace anti-discrimination policy.

The complainant was engaged in fly-in fly-out work for the respondent mining company. She alleged male team members and team leaders discriminated against her because of her sex and sexually harassed her, including by touching her buttocks, making comments of a sexual nature, and touching each other on the buttocks and penis. The complainant said she did not feel safe in the workplace and resigned because she felt she had no other option.

On being notified of the complaint, the mining company agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the mining company pay the complainant $55,000 and write to her apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant is a transgender woman. She alleged that a staff member of the respondent supermarket told her she was not a woman and laughed at her for wearing a dress.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket apologise to the complainant for the events giving rise to the complaint and take the opportunity to remind staff of their obligations to treat all customers with dignity and respect.

The complainant worked for a community organisation and alleged that a volunteer stroked her arm and embraced her without her consent at a work event. She said she reported the incident to the organisation and the police. She said the organisation found that the volunteer had breached its Code of Conduct but allowed him to keep working with the organisation. She alleged the matter would have been handled differently if she had been a man.

The community organisation denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The community organisation undertook to educate staff on harassment, review its policies and procedures on responding to reports of harassment, and make clear announcements about any changes to policy or procedure. The organisation also undertook to take steps to improve the conduct of volunteers, including developing selection criteria for volunteers, updating the Code of Conduct for volunteers, properly briefing volunteers on their obligations under the Code of Conduct, and developing a process to addressed alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by volunteers.