Conciliation Register

The complainant alleged that the respondent not-for-profit organisation denied her request to work from home during school holidays to enable her to care for her three children. She alleged she was told she would not be able to meet the requirements of her role while looking after her children.

The organisation claimed the complainant’s role required her to be present in the office.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The organisation agreed to pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

The complainant finds it difficult to stand for extended periods of time without short periods of rest due to a number of medical conditions. On commencing employment with the respondent clothing retailer, she requested some adjustments to accommodate her disability, including a kneeling stool and/or cushioned mat. She alleged the retailer denied her request, cancelled her induction training and rostered shifts and terminated her employment.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be reinstated and offered adjustments to accommodate her disability, such as additional breaks and use of an anti-fatigue mat.

The complainant worked for the respondent real estate agency. She alleged that after being informed she was pregnant, colleagues made negative comments, including "you are pregnant and useless, go home". She claimed the agency denied her request to work from home for part of the day at her doctor’s recommendation even though other staff were permitted to work from home. The complainant alleged that after she raised concerns about the above, the agency removed her from a work-related chat group, instructed her colleagues not to nominate her as a secondary contact when absent and refused to attempt to resolve an underpayment concern.

The agency said it was unable to substantiate the alleged comments. The agency said it understood the complainant’s request to be for part-day paid personal leave rather than working from home and this was provided. The agency said it removed the complainant from the chat group and instructed colleagues not to name her as a secondary contact because she had commenced parental leave. The agency denied allegations of underpayment.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the agency agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages in two instalments and provide her with a statement of service. The agency agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for any comments or actions that she may have perceived as hurtful, insensitive or harmful.

The complainant has a spinal injury and uses a mobility scooter. He claimed he was unable to leave his home due to the lack of pavement outside his house, given he was told it was illegal to use his scooter on the road. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local council modify the pavement on the complainant’s driveway and on the opposite side of the road to enable the complainant to safely access the footpath on the opposite side of the road with his scooter.

The complainant has Autism Spectrum Disorder and says he can feel overwhelmed when given a lot of information. He said he became overwhelmed on his first day of work with the respondent organisation and took the second day as personal leave. He claimed on the third day, he was told he was not the right fit for the organisation and his employment was terminated.

The organisation denied the allegations and said it was not aware of the complainant’s disability. The organisation claimed the complainant’s behaviour was inconsistent with its code of conduct and unrelated to his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant approximately $2,320 as a gesture of goodwill.

The complainant has a 6 month old exclusively breastfed baby and applied to the respondent educational body to sit a tertiary level admissions test. She alleged she was informed two days before the exam that she would not be permitted to breastfeed her baby on demand but rather, during the lunch break. The complainant noted this would mean she would not have a lunch break like others sitting the exam.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent agreed to participate in a conciliation process to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent write to the complainant apologising for her experience and offer a refund for the cost of the exam. The respondent also undertook to review its processes and training to improve information provided to breastfeeding people sitting exams and consider accommodating the needs of breastfeeding people in the context of existing adjustment guidelines.

The complainant alleged the respondent taxi driver at a taxi rank refused to take his fare because he was accompanied by an assistance animal. 

The taxi driver said he did not take the complainant’s fare because it would mean he would be late for a pre-arranged booking.

The complaint was resolved through conciliation. The taxi driver had undergone training on discrimination and customer service and expressed regret for declining the complainant’s fare. The taxi driver agreed to make a $250 donation in the complainant’s name to a charity that assists people with assistance animals and provides training and awareness raising to the public. The taxi company agreed to consult the charity on suitable training materials for its drivers to increase awareness of appropriate conduct towards passengers with disability accompanied by assistance animals.

The complainant uses a wheelchair. She alleged she had difficulty accessing the respondent retail outlet because aisles were obstructed by boxes, displays and decorations. She claimed when she raised the issue with the store manager she was treated in a disrespectful manner.

The retailer advised the complainant’s experience was an isolated incident and inconsistent with its policies. The retailer apologised to the complainant for her experience and indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an undertaking that the retailer provide training to staff on appropriate stocking procedures and the need to maintain wheelchair accessible pathways in retail outlets. The retailer also undertook to remind staff of the need to respond to customer concerns in a professional manner and deliver training on the needs of customers with disability. Further, the retailer also undertook to deliver additional regular training and carry out regular audits to ensure its outlets comply with relevant accessibility policies and requirements. The manager referred to in the complaint was no longer employed by the retailer.

The complainant’s son has a rare chromosomal disorder and is non-ambulatory and non-verbal. She alleged the respondent private school declined her son’s application for enrolment on the basis that it considered his disability could not be accommodated in a mainstream environment.

The school denied any discrimination and indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages. The school apologised to the complainant for her experience and agreed to convey the complainant’s concerns about the nature of communications between the school and parents seeking to enrol children with disability as a senior leadership meeting.

The complainant said she is African and has brown skin. She alleged her manager at the respondent bridal store discriminated against her on the ground of her race, including by treating her disrespectfully, following her around the shop, offering her no shifts and preferring the company of a white colleague of a similar age to the complainant.

The respondents denied discriminating against the complainant. They said the complainant was advised that ongoing work was subject to an assessment of her performance during two trial shifts. The respondents claimed the complainant did not perform well, including in her use of body language and interactions with customers. The respondents said the successful applicant is from a culturally and ethnically diverse background and had skills and experience superior to those of the complainant.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with an agreement that the shop pay the complainant $1,000 ex-gratia. The shop also undertook to provide clearer information to future applicants about the recruitment process, including that employment is subject to performance during trial shifts and that applicants are welcome to continue to seek job opportunities during the trial period.

The complainant alleged the respondent real estate agent denied her access to a property because she was accompanied by an assistance dog.

The real estate company apologised to the complainant for her experience and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The real estate agent was counselled and attended anit-discrimination training. The company delivered training to its staff on their obligations towards people with disability and assistance animals, incorporating information and resources provided by the Commission.

The complainant is an Aboriginal man. He was employed by the respondent health service as a Fire Safety and Security Officer. The complainant claimed the health service discriminated against him because of his race including by not automatically converting his part-time role to a full-time role when this became available until he raised the issue with his union, and ignoring his submissions in response to performance issues raised with him by the health service. He alleged his manager slapped him on the bottom when she walked past him on a number of occasions. He claimed he reported this conduct to the health service but no action was taken other than to offer him a meeting with the manager to ‘clear the air’. 

The health service denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the health service write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to his complaint, pay him $40,000 and update its training for managers on responding to allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

The complainant alleged the respondent local council failed to provide accessible parking at three local beaches.

The council advised it had recently introduced accessible parking at two of the beaches. The council advised accessible parking would be provided at the third beach as part of planned upgrades to parking facilities.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council install bollards at the two beaches to ensure the accessible parking was accessible in line with Australian Standards.

The complainant identifies as lesbian and was employed with the respondent electrical infrastructure business as an apprentice electrician. She alleged that two colleagues referred to her as ‘lesbo’, ‘pole cat’, ‘dick tease’ and ‘a waste of a good mouth’ with reference to her sexual orientation. She also alleged the same colleagues touched and leaned against her and another colleague referred to her as a ‘f****ing slut’ behind her back. She alleged that her colleagues isolated her after she made a complaint about the alleged conduct and she was told male colleagues were making comments of a sexual nature about her. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

The respondents denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $80,000.

The complainant was recovering from back surgery and used a walking frame. She attended the respondent hotel and said there was no accessible bathroom. The complainant said the cubicle was too narrow and so she had to leave her walking frame outside the cubicle. She claimed that, due to the lack of handrails in the cubicle, she was then unable to stand and became trapped in the cubicle. The complainant said her partner was able to assist her with the cubicle door open. The complainant alleged that when she raised the issue with a staff member she felt the staff member was dismissive of her experience. The complainant said she felt distressed and embarrassed by the incident.

The hotel owner advised the hotel is very old and the building is heritage listed, having undergone its last major refurbishment several decades ago. The hotel advised that it undergoes regular building inspections and the accessibility of toilet facilities has never been raised.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation. The hotel apologised to the complainant for her experience. The hotel undertook to install rails in at least one of the bathroom stalls for men and women and to explore the option of installing an accessible toilet should the hotel be refurbished in the future. The hotel also undertook to continue to talk to its staff about their responsibilities towards patrons with disability.