Conciliation Register

The complainant’s son has fragile X syndrome and an intellectual disability and needs assistance when handling money, paying bills and accessing his bank account. The complainant had been assisting her son with his banking at the respondent bank and claimed the bank told her that third-party authorisation would continue after he turned 18. She alleged that when her son turned 18, the bank would no longer permit her to access his account or banking details.

The bank said it allowed access to the account of a customer (whether child or adult) with disability to a relevant authorised person. When a person with disability turned 18, the authorisation was removed for their parent/guardian. If reinstating the authorisation was necessary (for example, if the customer with disability cannot manage their own finances) this could be done with the appropriate legal authority (for example, a financial management order). The bank denied discriminating against the complainant or her son, but said it was sorry that their banking experience did not meet their expectations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant’s son $3,500 in compensation for his poor customer experience.

 

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 has Autism Spectrum Disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, and depression. She resided in a caravan park and sought permission to have an assistance dog reside with her. The caravan park declined the request, citing its ‘no pets’ policy for guests and residents. 

On being advised of the complaint the business indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be permitted to have an assistance animal, provide relevant supporting documentation to the business, ensure the assistance animal was properly trained by an accredited organisation and ensure her dog practised appropriate toileting within the caravan park. 

The complainant attended the respondent private high school. She alleged that a colleague sexually harassed her, including by taking photos under her skirt, spreading rumours about her sex life, and circulating photos purported to be of her in the nude. She said she made a complaint about this behaviour to the school, but no action was taken. She claimed the school withdrew an award from her because she made a complaint.

The complainant’s colleague denied the allegations. The school said it investigated the complainant’s allegations, but these could not be substantiated.

The complaint was resolved. The school agreed to review its training for the following year in light of the allegations and to pay the complainant $9,000 to assist with medical expenses.

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 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.