Conciliation Register

The complainant has an intellectual disability and is non-verbal. The complainant’s advocate alleged that the respondent organisation delivering support to persons with disability required the complainant to sign a service agreement before delivering one-to-one support as set out in her NDIS plan. As the complainant did not have capacity to sign the agreement because of her disability, she was unable to receive the service.

On being advised of the complaint, the organisation agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation deliver support to the complainant without the need for her to sign a service agreement on the basis that discussions about the complainant’s needs would be held between the complainant’s support coordinator, advocate and the organisation.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal that assists in managing an anxiety disorder. She alleged a staff member at the respondent café, where she was breakfasting with her family,  told her she had to take her dog outside, despite the dog wearing a harness identifying it as an assistance animal. The complainant alleged the staff member’s aggressive manner led other patrons to become aggressive towards her and her experiencing a panic attack.

The café claimed the complainant’s dog was not wearing a jacket, was on an extendable lead and was roaming around the café, jumping up and sniffing other patrons and their food. The café claimed the staff member asked the complainant to demonstrate the dog was an assistance animal and under her control. The café denied the staff member was aggressive towards the complainant.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that a photo of the complainant and her dog be placed in the café’s staff room so that staff are familiar with them. The café’s owner undertook to hold a staff meeting to discuss the incident giving rise to the complaint and to provide the complainant with his phone number should she experience any problems in the future.

 

The complainant advised she is a South Sea Islander and her husband and children are Aboriginal. She is 53 years of age and worked as an animal facility officer with the respondent local council. The complainant alleged that, during a conversation, a colleague referred repeatedly to ‘Abos’ and said words to the effect that ‘they are okay when they are not drunk’. She alleged that when seeking to use a computer the complainant was using, the same colleague said ‘It’s not my fault you are so slow cause you are old’. She alleged both conversations took place in front of a supervisor, who took no action. The complainant said she made a complaint to Human Resources, who found allegations of racism to be substantiated but asked her if she would have found it as offensive had her colleague been referring to ‘pommies’. The complainant felt she had no option but to resign.

The council confirmed that an internal investigation found the complainant’s allegations to be substantiated. The council claimed all the recommendations of the investigator’s report were implemented.

The complaint was resolved. The council assured the complainant of its commitment to cultural diversity as reflected in its policies, including its code of conduct. The council undertook to include diversity as a topic in induction training and to include a leaflet on cultural diversity in its new induction pack.

The complainant was employed as an office manager by the respondent plant equipment supplier.  She alleged a manager sexually harassed her, including by regularly telling her she looked beautiful, propositioning her for sex, trying to kiss her, pressing up against her and inappropriately touching her. She claimed the company did not respond appropriately to her complaint about the manager’s conduct, accused her of making the complaint for financial gain and subsequently terminated her employment. 

The complainant’s former manager claimed that any conduct of a sexual nature was instigated by the complainant. The company claimed the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated and that her employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide the complainant with a statement of service and pay her $29,000. 

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focused on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant's ability to meet payments.

The complainant has muscular dystrophy and has difficulty walking. He alleged he was unable to access the respondent supermarket outlet because there was a high step at the front entrance and the accessible entrance was locked.

The supermarket advised that, in response to the complaint, it would keep the accessible entrance open during business hours.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket pay the complainant $5,000.

 

The complainant has a limited ability to lift weight and move his arms due to undergoing a quadruple bypass to manage a heart condition. He erected a temporary pergola in his backyard, as he was unable to operate a different type of shade structure because of his disability. He alleged the respondent owners corporation failed to approve his application for the pergola as a reasonable adjustment and directed him to remove it. The complainant also alleged the respondent strata management company was responsible for the discrimination.

The respondents claimed the complainant erected the pergola without first seeking permission to do so. They also claimed that, when he did seek permission, he failed to advise the respondents of his disability and need for that particular shade structure to accommodate his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the owner's corporation grant permission for the complainant to keep the pergola subject to a review of the complainant's ongoing need for the pergola on medical grounds in six months’ time.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal to alleviate the effects of a number of disabilities, including social anxiety, Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The complainant alleged staff at the respondent grocery store told her she was not allowed in with her dog, despite her explaining it was an assistance animal. The complainant said she was ultimately served, but felt very upset.

The store owner explained he had been unaware of his obligations under federal discrimination law and served the complainant once she explained her dog was an assistance animal and should be allowed in the store.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the store owner place an ‘Assistance Dogs Welcome’ sign in his store and write to the complainant expressing regret for the incident.

The complainant worked as a sales assistant and then as a store manager with the respondent furniture company. She alleged that two male directors and a male colleague sexually harassed her over several years, including by drawing sexually explicit cartoons and showing them to her, telling her she needed a ‘boob job’, making comments of a sexual nature, telling sexually explicit stories and showing other colleagues sexually explicit videos.  The complainant claimed other directors took no action in response to her concerns about this conduct and so she felt she had no option but to resign.

The respondents claimed the complainant was a willing participant in any conduct of a sexual nature that did take place and that she engaged in like conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents would jointly pay the complainant $30,000 and that the company will develop a discrimination and harassment policy which will include discussion of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Each individual respondent also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint and to undertake training delivered by an external provider on discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

The complainant was employed as a chef at the respondent restaurant. She alleged that her acting supervisor sexually harassed her by touching her on the back and shoulders, asking her on dates, telling her ‘you need to build some ass’  and telling her that she looked like a MILF when she wore dark lipstick. The complainant alleged that, after she told management about the conduct and her intention to lodge a complaint with this Commission, she was told not to attend her next shift, management raised concerns about her performance and she was told ‘I would resign if I were you’. She felt she had no option but to resign from her employment. 

The complainant’s former supervisor claimed he and the complainant had recently ended a consensual sexual relationship. He claimed that if he touched her in the kitchen, it was only to move past her. While he confirmed that he made some of the alleged comments, he denied others. The restaurant claimed it counselled the complainant’s former supervisor in response to her internal complaint and removed his higher duties. The restaurant claimed it held genuine concerns about the complainant’s performance prior to her internal complaint. The restaurant said these included that the complainant was producing poor quality food, was not wearing a hair net in the kitchen and wore nail polish to work. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant approximately $1,100, equivalent to three weeks’ pay. The restaurant also agreed to hold an all-staff meeting to be attended by the complainant and her former supervisor. The complainant’s former supervisor agreed to say the following at the all-staff meeting: ‘I understand there was a complaint from [the complainant] about workplace issues involving me. I confirm that we were able to resolve the complaint through conciliation. I regret that [the complainant] left the restaurant in the way she did and I wish her all the best for future endeavours.’ The complainant agreed to discontinue complaints she had made in other jurisdictions.  

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focussed on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant’s ability to meet payments.

 

The complainant has a number of medical conditions, including osteoarthritis, kidney stones, diabetes and depression. She alleged that during her employment with the respondent plant nursery, negative statements were made about her disability, including that her disability impacted negatively on her performance. The complainant claimed the nursery required her to undergo a fitness for duty process and ultimately terminated her employment.

The nursery claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated due to poor performance and not because of her disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the nursery pay the complainant $10,000, provide her with a statement of service and characterise the end of the employment as a resignation. The nursery also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant alleged that his application for employment as a senior network engineer was not successful because of his criminal record. The complainant was charged with assault in company but no conviction was recorded.

The company claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the role, as the successful applicant would have contact with vulnerable clients.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company review its anti-discrimination policies and write to the complainant acknowledging the distress he experienced.

The complainant is deaf and uses a hearing dog. She alleged that the respondent medical service denied or restricted her access to its premises when she was accompanied by her assistance animal.

The medical service advised the complainant had been a patient of the service for many years, but had never been accompanied by an assistance animal. The service said it required the complainant to leave her assistance animal at reception while she was undergoing an allergy test because she was unable to provide suitable evidence that her dog was an assistance animal. The service confirmed the complainant was not permitted to attend a follow-up appointment with her dog because there was a child in the waiting room with a severe allergy to dogs.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the medical service to accommodate patients with assistance animal in a manner which complied with relevant legislation and ensured the safety of all patients. The medical service agreed to develop a procedure outlining what should happen if a patient attends the service with an assistance animal and to provide staff with copies of relevant sections of federal and state legislation and guidelines.

The complainant has hyperthyroidism and has an assistance dog. She claimed that the respondent hair salon indicated that it would deny her access with her assistance dog, unless her assistance dog wore some kind of protection on its paws or used a floor underlay, due to the salon having recently renovated its floors. 

The hair salon claimed that it never denied the complainant access outright. It claimed its suggestions for paw protection and/or a floor underlay were attempts to accommodate the complainant and her assistance animal.

The complaint was resolved  with an agreement that the hair salon pay the complainant the ex gratia sum of $450.00.