Conciliation Register

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 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 has cancer, which required surgery and radiation therapy, and a work-related arm injury. She worked as an administrative officer with the respondent community organisation and alleged the operations manager ignored her, took away her work mobile phone and reduced her tasks. She alleged she was made redundant following a period of leave to undertake cancer treatment. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation re-employ the complainant on the same terms and conditions under which she was previously employed. The organisation undertook to actively pursue redeployment opportunities within the organisation and to meet with the complainant each week to discuss any redeployment opportunities or applications. It was agreed that if the complainant is unable to be redeployed, she will be made redundant. If this occurred, the organisation would pay her approximately $4,600 ex-gratia, $18,240 as a severance payment, $5,700 in lieu of notice and any accrued entitlements.   

The complainant is Aboriginal and alleged that, during a conversation in the dining room of a hotel, the respondent, whom she knew in a professional capacity, made derogatory comments about Aboriginal people and referred to them as ‘gins’ and ‘coloured people’. The complainant said she found the comments and the terms used to describe Aboriginal people offensive and intimidating. 

The respondent had a different recollection of the conversation but indicated a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent apologise to the complainant and pay her $12,500. The respondent also agreed to undertake management training covering cultural awareness and discrimination law and policy. 

The complainant worked in an administrative role with the respondent electronics company. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature and talking about his penis, pornography and his sex life. She said the manager’s conduct caused her great distress, requiring her to take time off work and see a psychologist. She alleged the company refused to cover the cost of the psychologist on the basis that it was not her employer. 

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

The complainant left the employment prior to the conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages. 

The complainant was employed as a team leader with the respondent debt solutions business. She said that she took maternity leave and sought to return to work part time. The complainant alleged the company required her to work fulltime in the team leader role or to accept a role with less responsibility and lower pay. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,500.

The complainant has strabismus (is ‘cross-eyed’) and was employed by a labour-hire company to work at the respondent insurance company. He alleged a colleague would make fun of him and his disability, mimic him to other staff by crossing her eyes and berate him. He said he raised concerns about this conduct with a manager and was told this was his fault because he was not a good fit for the team. The complainant said he felt he had no choice but to leave the employment before the end of his contract. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurance company pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The insurance company also undertook to review its workplace conduct, anti-discrimination and grievance policies. 

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.