Conciliation Register

The complainant became pregnant while undertaking veterinary nursing training with the respondent vocational training provider. She said the training included activities that could pose a risk to her unborn baby and the provider allowed her to commence a new course, though not to withdraw from the training. The complainant said she began a period of maternity leave but was still required to complete coursework and practical requirements.

The vocational training provider denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the vocational training provider pay the complainant $325 as a refund for fees associated with the course and review its student handbook to ensure options available to pregnant students were clarified.

The complainant was employed with the respondent investment firm as a business partner in corporate trust. She alleged that while she was on maternity leave to have her third child, the firm employed someone to permanently fill her role without consulting her or discussing her return to work. She said that when she sought to return to work on a part-time basis, the firm asked her to move to a comparable role as a business consultant. However, the complainant alleged that when she commenced the role it became clear to her the role was a demotion. She claimed the firm was not responsive to her concerns.

The firm denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The firm agreed to pay the complainant $42,000 as general damages, provide her with a reference and provide her with a statement of service. The firm also agreed to develop a strategy to inform staff of the Complainant’s resignation.

The Complainant’s primary-school-aged son has autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and motor dyspraxia. She said her son had been enrolled in a vacation care program and after-school care program with the respondent out of school hours care provider. The complainant alleged the service declined to enrol her son for future programs because of the cost and other difficulties associated with employing an additional educator to support her son.  

The service said funding and an additional educator was in place to accommodate the Complainant’s son. However, the service noted that the complainant had failed to submit the relevant enrolment forms for her son to attend vacation or after-school care programs. The service also emphasised the importance of the complainant providing notice of her son’s non-attendance, as the service had previously been required to cover the costs of an additional educator because her son had failed to attend without notice.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the Complainant’s son would attend the out of school hours care service and an undertaking by the complainant to notify the service should her son be unable to attend.

The complainant is a 19-year-old Aboriginal woman. She alleged that colleagues at the fast food outlet where she worked made racist and derogatory comments about Aboriginal people. She alleged that, on one occasion, her manager said she did not like 'those dirty Aboriginals'. She claimed she raised the issue with the store owner, but nothing was done. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign. 

The store owner and franchise advised that the store owner had investigated the complainant's claims and provided statements given by the two colleagues concerned. The respondents said the complainant's former manager had been issued with a formal warning. The respondents said no action was taken against the other colleague because there was no evidence that he made inappropriate statements and because the complainant was alleged to have made offensive comments about his sexuality. 

The complaint was resolved. The store owner and franchise undertook to direct the two staff members referred to in the complaint to undertake an online training module on appropriate workplace conduct. They also agreed to pay the complainant $3,000 net and write to her apologising for the comment and any distress the complainant experienced. The franchise also undertook to investigate the workplace culture at the outlet where the complainant worked. 

The complainant worked for the respondent real estate agency and alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by touching her on the legs and thighs, massaging her shoulders and making sexually explicit comments. She alleged that after she complained about the conduct, the agency victimised her by removing her from two projects as lead agent and performance managing her. She further alleged the agency discriminated against her on the grounds of her sex and pregnancy by offering male agents lead roles and not her. The complainant ceased working for the agency and commenced worker's compensation proceedings. 

On being notified 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 respondents pay the complainant $168,750. This figure was not inclusive of workers compensation payments already made, but also settled the ongoing worker's compensation dispute.

The complainant alleged the respondent beauty parlour refused to give her a foot massage because she was pregnant.

On being notified of the complaint the beauty parlour indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the beauty parlour update its policies and procedures with respect to services provided to pregnant women, apologise to the complainant for the incident and refund her for the value of a gift certificate.

The complainant is homosexual and worked for the respondent university. He claimed a colleague told another colleague that the complainant was sending him ‘gross’ photos and that he did not want to work with the complainant because of his sexual orientation. The complainant alleged that the university terminated his contract when he asked not to be allocated shifts with the colleague.

The university did not agree with the complainant’s view of events but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $1,000.

The complainant worked as a childcare worker for the respondent childcare centre. She developed a pregnancy-related medical condition and asked for adjustments to accommodate her condition, including reduced hours and weightlifting restrictions. She said these requests were accommodated initially. However, she alleged that after a period of leave, she was informed that on her return, she would be primarily performing kitchen duties, which involved repetitive lifting, bending and standing. She said that when she told the childcare centre that these duties would not be suitable, she was placed on special parental leave. 

The childcare centre denied discriminating against the complainant on the grounds of her pregnancy or disability but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The childcare centre agreed to pay the complainant $35,000 as an eligible termination payment and in compensation for accrued entitlements and to provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant alleged that the respondent software business terminated his employment in a sales role three weeks after recruiting him because of his criminal record. The complainant said he had left his employment with another employer to take up the position with the business. The complainant was charged with, but not convicted of, assault and domestic violence related offences six years earlier.  

The software business said that its decision to terminate the complainant's employment was based on a legitimate contractual right to terminate employment if an employee did not return a satisfactory criminal record check. The business agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant approximately $8,500. 

The complainant is deaf and worked for the respondent vocational training provider. He alleged that his employer and his manager discriminated against him on the ground of his disability, including by excluding him, failing to install visual fire alarms throughout the premises and failing to install a visual doorbell to the staff room. 

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

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The vocational training provider agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and to re-credit personal leave used by the complainant. The vocational training provider also undertook to meet with the complainant to better understand his concerns and to install visual fire alarms and beacons throughout the building.

The complainant is from China and claimed that when she contacted the respondent law enforcement agency to report an incident of domestic violence, she was not provided with a Mandarin language interpreter, despite requesting one. She alleged her claim was not adequately investigated and she was not assisted to find safe accommodation because she was unable to effectively communicate with investigating officers. She also alleged officers made comments regarding her race, including that she should return to China. 

The respondent law enforcement agency said attending officers made an assessment that the complainant did not require an interpreter and would be able to communicate effectively with them in English. The agency said the Complainant’s allegations of domestic violence were not pursued because she provided inconsistent versions of the events and there was an absence of supporting evidence. The officers denied making comments about the complainant’s race.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $5,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.   

The complainant’s 15-year-old son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and can become distressed when in crowded and noisy environments. The complainant claimed he was unable to take his son to a multi-day agricultural show because organisers did not schedule a day with reduced noise and crowds in order to accommodate the needs of people with disability. 

The organisers of the agricultural show claimed it was not possible to set a whole day aside as a ‘quiet day’ because of the short duration of the show and the number of stakeholders involved. Organisers said they had taken several steps to try to accommodate the needs of patrons with disability and to better manage noise and crowds. 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by organisers to: 

* Develop maps showing quieter and louder areas of the venue 

* Offer information on which times or days are least crowded 

* Provide a break-out area for people with disability 

* Update and improve the page on the show’s website dedicated to people with disability.

The complainant was employed as a store manager with the respondent retailer and injured his collar bone in a non-work-related incident. He said he was deemed unfit for any duties for four weeks and then fit for duties with restrictions on what weight he was able to lift. The complainant alleged the retailer and its owner would not allow him to return to work until he was fit to resume all duties without restriction. He claimed that, as a result, he was required to access three months of personal and annual leave. 

On being advised of the complaint, the retailer and its owner agreed to participate in conciliation. The retailer sold the outlet at which the complainant worked, and he was therefore made redundant prior to the conciliation conference. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer and its owner pay the complainant approximately $10,100 as a contribution to his legal costs and $5,000 as an ex-gratia payment. 

The complainant has a hearing impairment and worked as a nurse with the respondent health service. She advised she experienced significant hearing loss and asked to be moved to a less noisy environment. She alleged the health service told her she would be required to take leave without pay until her situation improved. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be reinstated in her role in a supported capacity. 

The complainant says he is homosexual and worked as a dispute officer with the respondent bank. He alleged a colleague made numerous comments about his sexuality and asked him if he was sexually involved with another male colleague. The complainant said he told his colleague that the comments made him uncomfortable and asked him to stop. He alleged his colleague did not take his request seriously, laughed at him and persisted with the comments. The complainant was no longer working at the bank when he made the complaint.

The bank said that following an internal investigation, the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated. The bank noted there was a bantering culture within the complainant’s team.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $2,000 and direct his former colleague to attend one-on-one training on anti-discrimination and leadership behaviours.