Conciliation Register

The complainant alleged the respondent employment agency posted an advertisement seeking a ‘young’ security professional. 

The employment agency said a mistake had been made and there had been no intent to exclude any person from applying, or being considered, for the role on the ground of age. The agency undertook to amend the advertisement and deliver anti-discrimination training to new staff. The agency also advised it would contact the complainant to apologise for the incident. 

The complainant considered the action taken by the employment agency in response to being notified of the complaint resolved the matter. 

The complainant was employed as a records officer with the respondent government agency. He had degeneration of his knees and ankles, which made it very difficult for him to deliver mail. After being provided with relevant medical information, the agency removed him from mailroom delivery duties. The complainant alleged that the agency then denied him acting-up opportunities and informed him he would not be considered for promotions in the mailroom, including a supervisor role that did not involve walking. The complainant said he made an internal complaint about the issue but was not satisfied with the outcome. 

The respondent said the complainant was not offered the opportunity to act in the team leader position because the position required work at different locations. The agency said concerns were held that the work could exacerbate the complainant’s disability. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The agency also undertook to meet with the complainant to set out what medical information he may need to provide and to explore future professional opportunities. The agency also undertook to deliver training to management on responding to grievances and communicating effectively with staff.  

The complainant is 77 years of age and alleged the respondent insurer did not offer him motorbike insurance because of its policy not to insure riders over the age of 75.

The insurer that, while there was a policy of not insuring riders over 75, staff had discretion to offer coverage to older riders. The insurer considered the complainant should have been offered insurance given he had previously held insurance policies and had made no claims under the most recent policy.

The complaint was resolved. The insurer agreed to update its policies and online systems to provide for the automatic acceptance of quotes for riders aged over 75, noting that whether cover was offered would otherwise be subject to the usual underwriting criteria.

The complainant is 70 years of age and was employed as a coordinator at the respondent childcare provider. She claimed her manager fabricated concerns about her performance and the organisation placed her on a performance management plan. She alleged her manager and the company were pressuring her to resign because of her age.

The company claimed genuine concerns were held about the complainant’s performance and arose from complaints by co-workers about her conduct. The company claimed the performance improvement plan was designed with the aim of helping the complainant improve her performance rather than to pressure her to resign.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.  The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $17,000 in outstanding entitlements on a fortnightly basis, followed by a lump-sum payment of approximately $7,500.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder, prolonged bereavement disorder and anxiety. He advises that he experienced difficulty in writing due to his disability. The complainant sought to lodge a complaint with the respondent government agency and was informed complaints must be made in writing. He alleged the agency declined to accommodate his disability by taking a statement by phone.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency take a statement from the complainant by phone. The agency also undertook to to review its accessibility and complaint policies and to deliver regular training to staff on delivery of an accessible service to people with disability.

The complainant’s son has cerebral palsy, epilepsy, chronic lung disease and an intellectual disability and attended a public school for children with chronic and complex disability needs. The complainant alleged his son was spending too long travelling between school and home on the respondent department’s free transport service for children attending the school. He alleged that the department’s policy of allowing children to spend up to four hours per day travelling to and from school was discriminatory.

On being notified of the complaint, the department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department pay the complainant approximately $2,200 as a contribution towards the cost of arranging private transportation for the child to travel to school in the morning. It was agreed the child would continue to use the department’s transportation in service in the afternoon.

The complainant has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, learning and developmental disability and generalised anxiety disorder.  He claimed that, on his first day of employment as a truck driver with the respondent company, he told his manager about his disability and need for assistance with writing, computer work and learning new tasks. He alleged the company did not make reasonable adjustments with respect to written and computer work. He also alleged a colleague bullied him, including by saying words to the effect ‘dumb f**k, I’m going to get you fired!’ and falsely accusing him of assault. The complainant said the company terminated his employment before the end of his probationary period.

The company claimed it terminated the complainant’s employment due to poor performance and not because of his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,000 ex-gratia, provide him with a statement of service and offer a contact person as referee for future job applications. 

The respondent labour-hire company placed the complainant at a dental practice in the role of dental assistant. The complainant alleged a dentist sexually harassed her, including by touching her arm, standing close to her, breathing down her neck and asking questions about her personal life. She alleged the labour-hire company stopped offering her work after she complained about the behaviour.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the labour hire company pay the complainant $5000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to her complaint.

The complainant attended the respondent film school to have a showreel recorded. She alleged the film director sexually harassed her during filming, including by saying "yes I am big… it's big alright… am I in?’. She claimed the film school did not respond to her complaint about the director’s conduct.

On being advised 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 film school pay the complainant $2500, write to the complainant apologising for the incident, deliver training on sexual harassment to all staff and inform all staff and students about the internal complaint process for allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

The complainant was employed as a manager at a gym. She alleged the gym’s owner sexually harassed her, including by inviting her to travel with him, noting his wife would not mind, and inviting her to move in with him if she ever broke up with her partner. The respondent had sold the gym before the complaint was lodged with the Commission.

The gym’s former owner denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the gym’s former owner pay the complainant $10,000 and write to the complainant apologising for anything he did that she construed as sexual harassment.

The complainant is 66 years of age and an alumni of the respondent university. He sought to join a university club and alleges the club offered membership free of cost only to alumni under the age of 35. He said the club did not offer him free membership despite him being retired and on a fixed income.

The university claimed that the offer of free membership to alumni under 35 was not unlawful because it constitutes positive discrimination. The university claimed the differential rate for young alumni was offered to recognise a lack of membership in this age group and to try to increase the youth take up of membership with a view to improving retention.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university waive the club joining fee for the complainant.

The complainant has anxiety and was a student with the respondent university. She advised the faculty granted her an extension to submit an assignment which she sought to accommodate her disability. The complainant alleged that she was subsequently sent a discriminatory email by the subject coordinator. The complainant alleged she was awarded a fail grade for the subject after alleging the subject coordinator’s email was discriminatory. She alleged the subject coordinator’s comments made her feel uncomfortable about seeking exemptions in the future.

The university conceded that the email was not sensitive or courteous, but denied that it was discriminatory. The university advised that the complainant’s grade was awarded before the internal complaint was made and by someone unaware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to work with the complainant to develop a plan setting out her disability-related need for adjustments, pending provision of relevant information about her disability. The university also agreed to change the complainant’s fail grades to withdrawals without academic or financial penalty and to pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages.

 

The complainant’s 10-year-old daughter has severe epilepsy, autism and an intellectual disability and has an assistance animal. The complainant booked a camping holiday for the family with the respondent accommodation provider. She alleged that when she tried to change her booking to book an apartment, she was told there was a ‘no pets’ policy, even if the animal was an assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the accommodation provider write to the complainant apologising for the incident and offer the family two weeks’ free accommodation. The accommodation provider undertook to state its commitment to offering access to guests with assistance animals on its social media page. Finally, the accommodation provider agreed to offer a staff member of an organisation responsible for the training of assistance animals two nights’ free accommodation and compensation for travel costs to facilitate an inspection of its expanding services to guests with assistance animals.

 

The complainant’s two young children use wheelchairs for mobility. She alleged customers using the respondent ticket booking service to book wheelchair accessible seating could not do so online, and must instead use a telephone booking service which was difficult to reach. 

The booking service acknowledged that the process for booking accessible seating is lengthier than the online process for booking standard seating. The service argued that through its phone booking system, trained operators could gain a better understanding of the particular needs of customers in order to match them with suitable accessible requirements of the particular venue, which varied in configuration and price point. The service advised that a number of tickets for each event were reserved for those using the telephone booking service, ensuring they were not disadvantaged in relation to those booking online.  The service noted that operators of its phone booking service also took steps to avoid fraudulent ticket purchases to ensure customers with legitimate access requirements were not deprived of tickets. The service argued it was not feasible to develop a system for online booking of accessible tickets, as there was no single technological solution that could adequately cater for the varying requirements of customers and venues and other complexities of booking accessible seating. 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the booking service to commence a two-year process to deliver equal access to online booking of tickets for customers with access needs. The service agreed to keep the complainant informed of progress and to continue to advocate for the provision of accessible seating and facilities by Australian entertainment venues.

The complainant is blind, has anxiety and has an assistance dog. She alleged she was originally not allowed to board a cruise with her assistance animal. She said she was ultimately allowed to board, but told she would not be permitted to board with an assistance animal in the future.

On being notified of the complaint, the cruise company indicated a willingness to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking that the complainant’s record reflect she travels with an assistance animal to ensure similar issues do not arise in future trips.