Conciliation Register

The respondent provided accommodation to the complainant, who was a distant relative from overseas. The complainant alleged the respondent sexually harassed her, including by making sexual comments, sending sexual text messages, showing her pornographic images and saying he would not have invited her to come live with him if he knew she would not have sex with him.

On being informed of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages.

The complainant was 69 years of age and has osteoarthritis. He said his local supermarket changed its payment policy to only allow payment by credit or debit card. He alleged this practice was discriminatory because older persons and persons with disability were more likely to experience difficulties in obtaining and using credit and/or debit cards.

The respondent supermarket advised it conducted a trial of card-only payment systems in some of these stores. The supermarket advised the trial had concluded and all stores accepted cash payments. The supermarket said that it appreciated that it may have moved ahead of community expectations and that not all customers felt welcome using card-only payment systems.

The complainant advised he considered his complaint resolved based on the supermarket’s assurances that all stores once again accepted cash payments.

The complainant is deafblind and uses a guide dog. She alleged that when she attended the respondent restaurant with her family, she was told she could not bring her ‘pet dog’ into the restaurant despite informing staff it was a guide dog. She alleged the owner asked her and her family to sit in a different section of the restaurant and then called the police.

The restaurant denied discriminating against the complainant, saying a dispute arose regarding changes to seating arrangements arising from COVID-19 restrictions.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant offer the complainant and her family a $120 voucher. It was also agreed that the complainant would review the restaurant’s assistance animal policy and provide feedback. The complainant agreed to provide the restaurant with a one-hour training session on assistance animals at a cost of $440.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal and sought to make a booking at the respondent hotel. He alleged the hotel told him his assistance animal would not be able to stay in his room. He claimed the hotel declined to consider evidence that his dog is an assistance animal.

On being notified of the complaint, the hotel indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $5000 and offer him one free night’s accommodation in the hotel.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder and was a student at the respondent vocational training organisation. He alleged he was required to undertake a video assessment for a subject, which he was unable to do because of his disability.

The training organisation said that the training package and the standards imposed on it by the third-party regulator, required the respondent to be satisfied of a student's competency to meet the course requirements. In light of this, the respondent determined that the only way to meet its obligations was to have an assessor observe the student doing the assessment task. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would engage with the respondent’s disability support unit to explore adjustments that could be provided to enable the complainant to safely undertake the video assessment. The respondent also undertook to assess whether an assessor could safely be sent to the complainant’s workplace and to provide the complainant with a single contact point moving forward.

 

The complainant is from Sri Lanka and was employed as a casual team member at the respondent supermarket. He alleged the respondent manager reduced his shifts while employing new Anglo-Saxon/white Australian staff. He also alleged Anglo-Saxon/white Australian staff were allocated less onerous duties, such as selling cigarettes and newspapers and monitoring self-checkout counters as opposed to packing bags or heavy lifting. The complainant further alleged the respondent manager intervened to prevent him from attending a leadership workshop. 

The supermarket claimed that the complainant was not the only employee whose shifts were reduced during the relevant time period. The supermarket said that new staff members were offered more shifts and more varied work tasks because the complainant's own availability was restricted due to his study commitments outside of work. The supermarket said that the complainant was not eligible for the leadership workshop because of his casual employment status.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket offer the complainant a permanent part-time role and train him in, and deploy him to, a broader variety of tasks. 

The complainant’s sex assigned at birth was female but they identify as non-binary/gender-fluid and is attracted to women. The complainant wished to attend an event hosted by the respondent. The website stated that the dress code was formal and that women must wear a dress and men must wear pants. The complainant alleged the respondent declined their request to wear a shirt and pants.

The respondent denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent allow event participants to wear formal attire that reflects their gender identity and advise any participants who had made enquiries about the dress code of this change in policy. The respondent also undertook to remove statements about the requirement for women to wear dresses and men to wear pants from its website and to donate an amount equivalent to the cost of the complainant’s ticket to an agreed charity.

The complainant has paraplegia and sought to obtain a motorcycle licence. The complainant is unable to ride a two-wheeled motorcycle because of his disability and instead sought to ride a three-wheeled motorcycle modified to allow him to ride it. He alleged the respondent government agency informed him there was no valid path available for doing a test on a three wheeled motorcycle and he would first have to do a course on a two wheeled motorcycle. 

On being informed of the complaint, the agency indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the agency to create a licence testing pathway for those who wish to ride a three wheeled motorcycle.

The complainant has a disability that affects his speech and was a client of the respondent government agency. He alleged his case worker kept asking him to repeat himself because she could not understand him and this caused his impairment to become more pronounced. 

On being notified of the complaint, the agency indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency write to the complainant expressing regret for his experience and update his file to identify the adjustments he requires. The agency also undertook to remind staff of their obligations under disability discrimination law and standards of practice.

The complainant is 64 years of age and was employed by the respondent computer wholesaler and IT services provider. Employees under the age of 65 were covered by a group salary continuance insurance policy which provided a monthly income benefit in case of total or partial disability due to illness or injury. Employees who were members of the corporate superannuation fund were also covered by a death and total and permanent disability insurance policy which provided a lump sum payable on death or total and permanent disablement. Cover under the latter policy progressively decreased after an employee turned 60 years of age until age 65 when cover ceased completely. The complainant alleged the company discriminated against him on the ground of age by not providing him with the same insurance benefits available to other employees.

The company said that it was not contractually or statutorily required to offer these insurance benefits and that participation in these arrangements was therefore not a term or condition of employment. The company claimed that the age restrictions were features of the insurance policies it procured and that it was unable to control what insurance products were commercially available.

The complaint was resolved. The company undertook to inform staff impacted by the age restrictions as soon as possible and to look for policies with fewer age restrictions when it was time to source new policies. The company also agreed that if the complainant could source a policy in the market that covered him and that was capable of being salary sacrificed, it could facilitate the salary-sacrifice arrangements.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder and has an assistance dog. She booked an overnight stay at the respondent caravan park. She alleged that the caravan park told her only guide dogs were allowed at the park, declined to look at her dog’s identification and advised her to find alternative accommodation.

On being notified of the complaint, the caravan park indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the caravan park write to the complainant apologising for the incident, display a sign stating that assistance animals are welcome at the park and donate $150 to an agreed assistance animal not-for-profit organisation.