Conciliation Register

The complainant has psychosocial disability, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks. He has two assistance dogs that assist him to stay calm and manage the effects of his disability. He alleged he was not permitted to enter his local library with his assistance dogs, despite providing evidence that they are assistance animals.

The respondent council said it had reservations about whether the dogs were trained to meet standards of behaviour acceptable for public areas.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was permitted to enter his local library with his dogs after the council commissioned an assessment of their behaviour, at no cost to the complainant.

The complainant said the respondent called her to offer cleaning services. She alleged that when she asked the price, he said ‘Oh, it’s a bloody Indian’.

The respondent recalled saying the words and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The respondent apologised to the complainant, saying that the comment was not nice, was inappropriate and that he should have known better.

The complainant is 16 years of age and has dyslexia, and has difficulty with working memory, auditory processing, reading, and spelling. She alleged the respondent education standards authority declined her requests for adjustments to accommodate her disability during year 12 exams.

The authority advised that the decision to decline the complainant’s original application for adjustments was overturned on appeal. The authority advised there was miscommunication about the appeal between the authority and the complainant’s school.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was granted the use of a computer with voice-to-text software and with timed breaks during exams.

 

The complainant said that she and her partner attended the respondent night club and they were both wearing flat leather open toed shoes. The complainant said her partner was told he was not allowed to enter because his footwear was inappropriate but she was told ‘you're a girl so your shoes are okay’. She said when she complained that this policy amounted to discrimination she was told she could not enter either.

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

The complaint was resolved. The nightclub and the staff member who refused the complainant and her partner entry wrote to the complainant apologising for the incident. The nightclub also updated its dress code policy to remove references to sex or gender.

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and applied for a role in a remote location with the respondent mining company. She said she began an onboarding process but was then told her application was unsuccessful after she made the company aware of her mental health history. She claimed she was not given feedback on her application.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the mining company pay the complainant $6,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The company also agreed to delete any health and medical information it held about the complainant.

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 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.