Conciliation Register

The complainant is deaf and uses Auslan to communicate. She said she was offered the use of Auslan interpreters on three occasions when she first started work at the respondent public hospital. However, she said no further Auslan support was provided over the ensuing years, meaning she was often unable to understand what was being said at meetings or training courses, including information about changes to her working hours.

The respondent hospital advised that reasonable adjustment arrangements for the complainant had not been formalised, but it was known she would benefit from access to Auslan interpreters. The hospital claimed Auslan interpreters were used for formal meetings, and lip-reading and text messages/handwritten notes were used in less formal occasions. The hospital argued additional use of Auslan interpreters would not have been practicable. The hospital claimed concerns were held about the complainant’s use of sick leave and her fitness for duty and she ultimately resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant $5,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The hospital also agreed to deliver disability awareness training to its managers, with a focus on deafness.

The complainant identifies as a transgender woman and contacted the respondent insurer for the purposes of obtaining a quote for life insurance. She alleged a staff member of the insurer addressed her as ‘sir’ and told her that she would be assessed for life insurance as a male, despite identifying as female. 

The insurer explained a staff member initially addressed the complainant as ‘sir’ as an initial greeting and before being aware the complainant identifies as female. The insurer said the staff member again addressed the complainant as ‘sir’ after becoming rattled in response to the complainant’s conduct on the call. The insurer said applications for insurance were assessed using an underwriting rules engine which assesses applicants according to their sex at birth. The insurer explained that transgender applicants were assessed according to their sex at birth because risks associated with their sex at birth were unlikely to change due to a change in gender identity.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $5,000 and convey the issues raised in the complaint to its underwriter.

The complainant identifies as a transgender man. He alleged that when he attended a branch of the respondent bank, a staff member disclosed to a colleague that he was transgender and the two proceeded to stare at him. He further alleged that when he attended another branch of the bank, several staff members were discussing his gender identity and one proceeded to ask him intrusive questions about the transition process in front of other staff. The complainant advised he developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incidents.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $32,240, offer him up to 12 telephone counselling sessions through its customer support service, grant him access to its customer financial assistance program and waive all fees associated with the discharge of his home loan with the bank. The bank undertook to require staff in branches within the complainant’s region to re-complete the bank’s existing mandatory workplace conduct eLearning module. The bank also agreed to consider any feedback the complainant may wish to provide on its discrimination policies and training.

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 is HIV+ and attended the respondent driving school in order to obtain a truck-driving licence. She said that she disclosed that she takes medication to manage her disability to the driving instructor while the two were driving as part of a one-to-one lesson. She alleged the instructor told her she had put the lives of everyone who had been in the truck at risk, directed her to stop the truck and get into the passenger’s seat and drove back to the driving school. The complainant alleged that when she wrote down the name of her medication on a piece of paper at the instructor’s request, he picked it up by the corner with the tips of his fingers. The complainant claimed she felt the instructor was afraid of, and disgusted, by her. The complainant said she raised concerns about what happened with the driving school but was not satisfied with the response. She said she was unable to finish her driving course or obtain her licence.

The driving school said that the government authority that accredits the driving course requires students to disclose on enrolment if they are taking any medication. If a student is taking any medication, the student must be cleared by the authority before being able to undertake the driving course. The driving school said the complainant had failed to disclose that she was on medication. The driving school said that, on finding out that the complainant was on medication, the instructor had no option but to stop the truck and drive her back to base. The driving school said the instructor denied behaving in a manner that conveyed fear or disgust towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the driving school refund the complainant $1,350 for the cost of the course, deliver training to all staff on the needs of students with disability and draft guidelines for instructors on how best to respond to disclosures by students that they are on medication.

The complainant is Aboriginal and worked as a cleaner at the respondent hotel. She alleged that, after a change of ownership, her shifts were reduced and eventually, she was not offered any work. She claimed the hotel did not offer any reasons for the reduction in her shifts, there was no downturn in business, no issues were raised about her performance and another Aboriginal cleaner was also not offered further work after the change in ownership.

The hotel advised that the new owners took over some of the cleaning duties, meaning there was less work available for staff.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $1,500, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant worked for the respondent television production company as a crew member. She alleged a colleague sexually harassed her, including by making comments about her appearance and slapping her on her buttocks. She also alleged two other colleagues observed the conduct and one said 'nah, she wants it hey', to which the other said ' yeah mate she does' in relation to inferred sexual acts.

The television production company said it terminated the complainant’s colleague’s employment following an internal investigation which found he had sexually harassed her. The company noted the complainant’s colleague was stood down with pay during the investigation and both were offered counselling support. The company claimed it only became aware of the complainant’s allegations against the two bystanders as a result of her complaint to the Commission and was unable to substantiate her allegations. The company claimed it took reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, including putting in place relevant policies and procedures and conducting regular training.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the television production company pay the complainant $47,500 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and provide her with a point of contact for prospective employers. The company also agreed to deliver training on sexual harassment to all staff. The complainant’s former colleague agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and to write to her apologising for the conduct complained about. One of the bystanders also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the incident.

 

The complainant was employed as an executive manager with the respondent corporate. She alleged that, after she informed the corporation that she was pregnant and would be seeking seven months’ maternity leave, she was informed her role would be made redundant, was offered an inferior role and was not offered a more senior role for which she was qualified. She further alleges that, when she returned to work after her maternity leave the corporation informed her that her new role would be made redundant and that there were no opportunities for redeployment. 

The corporation claimed that the redundancies were based on genuine operational requirements, the role offered to the complainant was not a demotion and the complainant was not qualified for the more senior role she was interested in. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the corporation pay the complainant $45,000 general damages, $5,000 in compensation for legal costs and $5,000 as an eligible termination payment.  

The complainant is Deaf and claimed that on several occasions his bank tried to communicate with him by telephone regarding his accounts. He claimed this required him to attend a branch in person to conduct his banking or to enlist the assistance of another person to communicate with the bank by telephone, meaning he needed to disclose his personal banking security information to that person. He considered the bank should offer the option of communication by text message.

On being advised of the complaint the bank agreed to participate in a conciliation process.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $500 and offer him personalised banking services, including a point of contact with whom he can communicate via text message.