Conciliation Register

The complainant is from Sri Lanka and was employed as a casual team member at the respondent supermarket. He alleged the respondent manager reduced his shifts while employing new Anglo-Saxon/white Australian staff. He also alleged Anglo-Saxon/white Australian staff were allocated less onerous duties, such as selling cigarettes and newspapers and monitoring self-checkout counters as opposed to packing bags or heavy lifting. The complainant further alleged the respondent manager intervened to prevent him from attending a leadership workshop. 

The supermarket claimed that the complainant was not the only employee whose shifts were reduced during the relevant time period. The supermarket said that new staff members were offered more shifts and more varied work tasks because the complainant's own availability was restricted due to his study commitments outside of work. The supermarket said that the complainant was not eligible for the leadership workshop because of his casual employment status.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket offer the complainant a permanent part-time role and train him in, and deploy him to, a broader variety of tasks. 

The complainant’s sex assigned at birth was female but they identify as non-binary/gender-fluid and is attracted to women. The complainant wished to attend an event hosted by the respondent. The website stated that the dress code was formal and that women must wear a dress and men must wear pants. The complainant alleged the respondent declined their request to wear a shirt and pants.

The respondent denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent allow event participants to wear formal attire that reflects their gender identity and advise any participants who had made enquiries about the dress code of this change in policy. The respondent also undertook to remove statements about the requirement for women to wear dresses and men to wear pants from its website and to donate an amount equivalent to the cost of the complainant’s ticket to an agreed charity.

The complainant has paraplegia and sought to obtain a motorcycle licence. The complainant is unable to ride a two-wheeled motorcycle because of his disability and instead sought to ride a three-wheeled motorcycle modified to allow him to ride it. He alleged the respondent government agency informed him there was no valid path available for doing a test on a three wheeled motorcycle and he would first have to do a course on a two wheeled motorcycle. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the agency to create a licence testing pathway for those who wish to ride a three wheeled motorcycle.

The complainant has a disability that affects his speech and was a client of the respondent government agency. He alleged his case worker kept asking him to repeat himself because she could not understand him and this caused his impairment to become more pronounced. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency write to the complainant expressing regret for his experience and update his file to identify the adjustments he requires. The agency also undertook to remind staff of their obligations under disability discrimination law and standards of practice.

The complainant is 64 years of age and was employed by the respondent computer wholesaler and IT services provider. Employees under the age of 65 were covered by a group salary continuance insurance policy which provided a monthly income benefit in case of total or partial disability due to illness or injury. Employees who were members of the corporate superannuation fund were also covered by a death and total and permanent disability insurance policy which provided a lump sum payable on death or total and permanent disablement. Cover under the latter policy progressively decreased after an employee turned 60 years of age until age 65 when cover ceased completely. The complainant alleged the company discriminated against him on the ground of age by not providing him with the same insurance benefits available to other employees.

The company said that it was not contractually or statutorily required to offer these insurance benefits and that participation in these arrangements was therefore not a term or condition of employment. The company claimed that the age restrictions were features of the insurance policies it procured and that it was unable to control what insurance products were commercially available.

The complaint was resolved. The company undertook to inform staff impacted by the age restrictions as soon as possible and to look for policies with fewer age restrictions when it was time to source new policies. The company also agreed that if the complainant could source a policy in the market that covered him and that was capable of being salary sacrificed, it could facilitate the salary-sacrifice arrangements.

The complainant has post-traumatic stress disorder and has an assistance dog. She booked an overnight stay at the respondent caravan park. She alleged that the caravan park told her only guide dogs were allowed at the park, declined to look at her dog’s identification and advised her to find alternative accommodation.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the caravan park write to the complainant apologising for the incident, display a sign stating that assistance animals are welcome at the park and donate $150 to an agreed assistance animal not-for-profit organisation.

The complainant has schizophrenia and a back injury and was employed in an IT role with the respondent government agency. He alleged he was treated less favourably because he has schizophrenia, including by being excluded from the workplace, being given excessive work to perform at home, having his personal property tampered with and being referred to as ‘weird’. He also alleged the agency failed to accommodate his back injury, including not allowing him to sit during standing meetings, not letting him work part-time and failing to provide easier access to bathroom facilities.

The agency claimed it made reasonable adjustments to accommodate the complainant’s back injury in line with his treating doctor’s recommendations. The agency said it only became aware the complainant has schizophrenia when he undertook a fitness for duty assessment after commencing leave due to ill health. The complainant subsequently resigned.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the distress he reported, provide him with a statement of service and pay him $2,000 in compensation for non-economic loss.

 

The complainant has an intellectual disability and was enrolled in a course with the respondent vocational training provider to attain a qualification in aged care. She alleged she was refused an extension of time to complete the course requirements to accommodate her disability and her enrolment was terminated.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the training organisation take proactive steps to ensure that students who disclose a learning or cognitive disability understand the requirements of the course in which they have enrolled and their ability to ask for adjustments to accommodate their disability. The training organisation also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the distress she experienced as a result of the breakdown in communication, provide her with a statement of attainment for units completed and offer her a $250 voucher for a service that provides assistance in resume development and other job seeking skills.

The complainant has arthritis and is unable to stand for extended periods. He alleged the respondent bowling club declined his request to have a small folding chair on the green while playing the position of ‘skipper’ in order to help him manage the pain associated with his disability.

The bowling club said it declined the request because a chair on the green would present a risk to the safety of players. The club noted all players have access to chairs off the green and the skipper is not required to be on the green at all times. The club proposed the use of a different aid approved by the national sporting authority.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant develop an alternative disability aid and the club consider approval of the aid for use in the sport.

The complainant was 69 years of age and has osteoarthritis. He said his local supermarket changed its payment policy to only allow payment by credit or debit card. He alleged this practice was discriminatory because older persons and persons with disability were more likely to experience difficulties in obtaining and using credit and/or debit cards.

The respondent supermarket advised it conducted a trial of card-only payment systems in some of these stores. The supermarket advised the trial had concluded and all stores accepted cash payments. The supermarket said that it appreciated that it may have moved ahead of community expectations and that not all customers felt welcome using card-only payment systems.

The complainant advised he considered his complaint resolved based on the supermarket’s assurances that all stores once again accepted cash payments.

The complainant has macula degeneration, which causes vision loss. The respondent transportation company terminated the complainant’s employment as an engineer at the end of his probation period. The complainant alleged the company failed to provide him with timely feedback on his performance and failed to provide him with adjustments to enable him to perform the inherent requirements of his job, including failing to commission an occupational health assessment. The complainant acknowledged the company expressed concerns about his performance but claimed any performance issues could have been addressed had he received timely feedback and adjustments to accommodate his disability.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $34,200 as an ex-gratia payment and provide him with a statement of service. The company also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the events giving rise to his complaint and outlining the changes the company intended to implement in response to his experience in the workplace.

The complainant has a back and leg injury and anxiety and has a carer. She advised she lived in public housing that was not appropriate for someone with her disability and could not appropriately accommodate a carer. She alleged the public housing provider failed to action her request for appropriate housing.

On being advised of the complaint, the relevant government department indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try and resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was offered accommodation that was appropriate for her disability and need for a carer.

 

The complainant is legally blind and was studying at the respondent university. She alleged reading material was not provided to her in a format accessible to her.

On being advised of the complaint, the university indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university convert all materials available in PDF format to Word format, which is accessible to the complainant using screen reading software.

 

The complainant is 71 years of age and a long-term customer of the respondent bank. He made enquiries about obtaining a home-loan to enable him to buy an investment property which may later become his home. He alleged he was told it was the bank’s policy not to offer home loans to persons over 70 years of age without taking into account his ability to repay the loan. The complainant received a superannuation pension and owned significant assets.

 

The bank claimed that the complainant was ineligible to proceed with a loan application due to his income and the potential for the loan to place him into financial hardship. The bank claimed that providing a loan to the complainant would not be considered responsible lending.  

The complaint was resolved. The bank acknowledged that its staff did not ask for, or collect, all relevant information before making an assessment about the complainant's request and apologised for his experience. The bank undertook to offer the relevant staff member additional training and to ensure that all staff are aware of their obligations when assessing loan applications. It was also agreed that the branch manager would contact the complainant directly to discuss the information needed to ensure a thorough assessment of his request. 

The complainant purchased some items at an outlet of the respondent charity. He claimed a store attendant asked him where he was from. He alleged that when he informed her he was from China, she made comments to the effect that 'the Chinese are doing lots of nasty things to the world' and 'Chinese are disgusting'. 

The respondent charity said the person involved had a different recollection of the conversation but admitted making comments of a political nature about the Chinese government. The charity said that such comments were contrary to its code of conduct and it therefore terminated the person's engagement as a volunteer with the charity.

The complaint was resolved. The charity apologised to the complainant for the incident and agreed to pay him $1,000 as general damages.