Conciliation Register

The complainant has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. She said she attended an event regarding possible seasonal work with the respondent retailer in response to an advertisement at a career day. The complainant alleged she was unable to attend the event or apply for a role because there were steps at the entrance to the room in which the event was being held.

The retailer confirmed the main entrance into the room where interviews were being held was not wheelchair accessible. The retailer claimed the complainant was offered the option of entering the room via a kitchen that was not in use. The retailer claimed the interview could have proceeded if the complainant had accepted this option.

The complaint was resolved. The retailer undertook to ensure all future such events are held in wheelchair accessible venues. The retailer also invited the complainant to make contact if she remained interested in seasonal or other work with the retailer.

The complainant had been a volunteer with the respondent community organisation. She alleged that when she expressed interest in applying for an advertised paid position, a manager told her the organisation was looking for a male because physical strength was required. The complainant was appointed to the paid position and alleged the same manager sexually harassed her, including by kissing her on the cheek, telling her he was attracted to her, asking her to go with him on a date and asking to go to her home. She also alleged she was unsuccessful for other paid roles in the organisation because she rejected the manager’s advances. The complainant had left her employment before lodging her complaint with the Commission.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation write to the complainant acknowledging her distress and pay her $15,000. The organisation advised it had completed a disciplinary process with the manager, was in the process of reviewing relevant policies and procedures and would be delivering relevant training to staff.

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.

The complainant has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, depression and anxiety and was employed with the respondent local council. He said he experienced a panic attack at work arising from issues in his personal life. He alleged a manager disclosed information about his disability and attraction to a former supervisor without his permission. He also alleged the council did not permit him to return to his substantive role and required him to undergo numerous health assessments, despite him being deemed fit to return to work.

The council claimed it was not appropriate for the complainant to return to his substantive position for health and well-being reasons due to his attraction to his former supervisor and his mental health history.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant approximately $95,000 and contribute to the cost of him accessing an employment services provider. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant was employed with the respondent government agency. She alleged that a much older member of senior management groomed her over a period of time in a manner that constituted sexual harassment, including by approaching her at work and work drinks, connecting with her on a social networking site and privately messaging her on that site to tell her she was amazing.  She said she became anxious because colleagues began commenting on the senior manager’s behaviour towards her. The complainant claimed she made a number of complaints about this conduct to management, but no action was taken. She said she worked from home in order to avoid the senior manager and eventually left her employment.

The agency advised the senior manager’s conduct was found to breach relevant policies and procedures governing the conduct of public servants. The agency advised the senior manager had resigned before a final decision was made as to whether his employment would be terminated. The agency said the senior manager’s behaviour was unacceptable and outlined the steps it had taken since receiving the complaint to ensure that the workplace was safe, including implementing structural change by ensuring gender equality in senior management and developing a diversity and inclusion plan.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $40,000 as general damages. The agency and the senior manager also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant applied for a position as a support worker with the respondent community organisation. She said the organisation withdrew an offer of casual employment once aware of her criminal record.The complainant had been convicted of common assault on three occasions with the most recent conviction occurring eight years earlier. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation employ the complainant as a support worker.

 

The complainant has anxiety, depression and panic attacks and worked as a security guard at the premises of a government entity. He advised he was required to take time off work to attend appointments with his psychologist and to attend hospital to manage his disability. He alleged the government entity asked his employer, a private security company, to remove him from the site, ‘get rid’ of him and ‘fire’ him because he required a prolonged period of hospitalisation to undertake treatment for his disability.

The government entity claimed it was supportive of the complainant’s need to access leave to accommodate his disability, but needed to fill the role on an ongoing basis. The government agency said a person to fulfil the ongoing vacancy was sourced from another company because the complainant’s employer was unable to offer a suitably qualified candidate.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government entity pay the complainant $10,000.

The complainant has post-stroke hemiplegia, aphasia and depression, and has an assistance animal. He booked a two-night stay with the respondent resort, which would cost approximately $350 and was informed shortly before he was due to check-in that a $150 fee would apply because he was accompanied by an assistance animal. The complainant said he asked to see a copy of the relevant policy but it was not provided to him. He also alleged the resort declined to waive the fee despite his advice that his dog was trained, licensed as an assistance animal and non-shedding.

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

The complaint was resolved. The resort apologised to the complainant for his experience, offered him a complimentary one-night stay and raised the complainant's experience with management, resulting in a review of policy and the publication of new guidelines regarding assistance animals.

The complainant is from Thailand and worked as a nurse at the respondent aged care facility. She alleged a colleague made a number of racially offensive comments towards her, such as aggressively telling the complainant to speak English and telling the complainant she did not understand the complainant’s culture.

The aged care facility advised that, in response to the complainant’s allegations, it had issued her colleague with a warning. The aged care facility had also delivered an anti-discrimination awareness session for all staff, which the named colleague was required to attend.

The complaint was resolved. In addition to the outcomes already implemented by the aged care facility, the complainant’s colleague apologised to the complainant. The complainant remained employed with the aged care facility and continued to work alongside her colleague.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and has been issued with a disability parking permit by the relevant authority. She alleged the respondent parking station issued her with a contravention notice after she remained parked in an accessible parking bay longer than the allocated time. She claimed the parking station should allow persons who have disability parking permits longer parking periods than those without such permits but was told the parking station charged all those using its service the same rates.  

The parking station operator noted that many people with disability used the parking station to facilitate access to nearby medical services. It claimed placing two-hour limits on parking was reasonable to maximise access to the parking station.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the parking station convert two of its two-hour accessible parking bays to four-hour accessible parking bays. The parking station also agreed to improve signage about the location of payment points, promote its online payment system, show the complainant how to use the online payment system and forward feedback from the complainant to the provider of its payment machines.