Conciliation Register

The complainant is 70 years of age and has a chronic eye condition. He alleged that following a restructure, the Chairman of the company told him his role as Chief Financial Officer would be made redundant because of his age and vision impairment and to allow the company to recruit someone younger. He alleged he was pressured for his redundancy to be announced as his retirement even though he did not wish to retire.

The respondents denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages and buy back his shares in the company, which were worth approximately $41,000.

The complainant has a number of disabilities, including a vision impairment. She claimed that she was unable to independently access the respondent government agency's online services because the agency required her to sign in using a security code provided by text message instead of the previously used security questions. The complainant claimed she was unable to use a smart phone to access the security code before it expired because of her disability. 

On being informed of the complaint, the government agency agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the government agency to provide the complainant with face-to-face assistance to complete the required paperwork and to offer this assistance in the future as needed.

The complainant is Sikh and Punjabi and wears a turban over his unshorn hair. He alleged the respondent university required him to wear the graduation trencher hat in order to participate in his graduation ceremony. The complainant said he could not fit the trencher over his turban and could not remove the turban for religious and practical reasons. He alleged university staff were rude and disrespectful towards him. He said he was eventually permitted to participate in his graduation ceremony without wearing a trencher hat but was deeply affected by the experience.

The university denied unlawfully discriminating against the complainant. The university advised it took a number of actions in response to the complainant’s allegations, including updating its graduation attire policy to remove the requirement for a trencher to be worn. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university write to the complainant apologising for his experience, pay him $1,500 and offer him counselling sessions up to a value of $3,000 over 24 months. The university also agreed to undertake a consultation process on inclusion of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The complainant alleged the respondent golf club discriminated against her on the basis of sex by removing early morning tee off timeslots for a women's golf competition while not doing so for the equivalent men’s gold competition. She also alleged she was victimised for the raising the issue with the club.

The club said that the decision to remove the early tee off time slots for the women’s golf competition was based on the financial and practical needs of the club. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the golf club reinstate the early morning tee off time slots for the women's competition, and that a review of these time slots would be conducted at the conclusion on the golfing competition season. 

The complainant’s partner is blind and uses a guide dog. The complainant alleged the respondent airport did not have safe and convenient facilities for the watering and toileting of the guide dog.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airport will progressively build three indoor assistance animal relief areas at different terminals within the airport, with appropriate amenities including a dry and weatherproof ground surface, fencing, rubbish bins and signage.

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 alleged the respondent club told him he was not permitted to use his mobility scooter inside club premises and would need to leave it at the club entrance. He said the club offered him the use of a wheelchair, but this was not suitable as he is unable to walk without assistance or transfer to and from the wheelchair independently. He alleged that despite being informed of this, the club insisted that he was not permitted to use his mobility scooter inside club premises. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the club to revise the terms and conditions of entry for patrons who use mobility scooters and/or motorised wheelchairs to alleviate the impacts of the disability. Patrons with mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs would be granted access to club premises so long as they: 

* Operate the mobility scooter or wheelchair in a safe manner 

* Not travel faster than walking pace when inside the Club or within a crowded area to avoid ‘overtaking’ of patrons who are walking  

* Avoid distractions such as headphones, mobile phones or other electronic devices when operating the mobility scooter or wheelchair  

* Slow down and take care when turning around corners.  

The club advised that patrons using mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs who do not abide by these requirements may be asked to leave. 

The complainant's 13-year-old son has autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder. The complainant alleged one local public high school refused to enrol his son and that another delayed his enrolment for five months. He also alleged the public high school his son attended did not provide him with adjustments to accommodate his disabilities and this failure resulted in his son being suspended on multiple occasions, being isolated from his class and being unable to play with his peers. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The department responsible for the operation of the schools agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The high school the complainant’s son attended agreed to facilitate a more active parental involvement, implement new educational objectives and a new positive behaviour reward system for the complainant’s son.

The complainant has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and social anxiety and worked as a storeman with the respondent company. He said he informed his manager of his disability and its potential impact on his interactions with others. He alleged his manager responded in a dismissive manner to his disclosure and later failed to respond to his concerns that colleagues were reacting negatively when he disclosed or tried to explain the nature of his disability. The company stood the complainant down following an incident at a company social event and terminated his employment at the conclusion of the probation period.

The company said the complainant behaved in a manner that placed himself and others at risk during a company social event. The company said the complainant's behaviour was contrary to company values and the employment relationship was therefore not sustainable.

The complaint was resolved. The company agreed to pay the complainant $5,000 as an Eligible Termination Payment, to characterise the end of the employment as a resignation and to provide him with a reference.

 

The complainant’s son has autism and has an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent motel refused her booking on the basis that it does not allow pets or animals in the motel.

The motel confirmed it did not accept animals and agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved after the motel confirmed in writing that assistance animals would be welcomed at the motel in future.

 

The complainant has asthma and psychosocial disability, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), related to trauma. She has an assistance dog. The complainant’s general practitioner referred her to the respondent health clinic for a consultation with the respondent doctor. The clinic’s receptionist contacted her to confirm that she would be undergoing certain medical procedures prior to the consultation. The complainant claimed that the thought of the intrusive medical procedures caused her anxiety and stress and she told the receptionist of her worry that it would trigger her PTSD.

The complainant also wrote to the doctor requesting information about what was going to happen at the appointment so that she could make adequate preparations (for example, whether to request sedation and what to do with her assistance dog during the appointment), asking the doctor if she could deliver trauma-informed care; and asking how she would approach further communications to alleviate her anxiety. 

The clinic’s practice manager wrote to the complainant to advise the doctor’s view that, having considered her clinical record and communications, she could not provide trauma informed healthcare and suggested she engage with a public healthcare provider instead.

The respondents advised they did not refuse a service. Rather they honestly answered the complainant's questions about whether or not the doctor had training in trauma informed care with a particular training organisation, which she had not. The respondents said it was their understanding that the complainant did not wish to proceed with the appointment.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $5,000 ex gratia. The doctor agreed to undertake training in trauma informed care and then make an assessment as to what training may be required for other staff at the practice. The clinic undertook to review its policies and procedures in light of the issues raised in the complaint.

The complainant was placed with the respondent food services and utilities management company by a labour-hire company. She claimed she was encouraged to apply for permanent employment with the company but her application was unsuccessful and she was banned from the premises because of her criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of traffic infringements, trespassing and providing misleading information. 

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 re-consider the complainant’s application and review its anti-discrimination policies with a focus on legislation regarding criminal record discrimination. The complainant’s application was successful and she commenced employment with company.  

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and applied for a role in a remote location with the respondent mining company. She said she began an onboarding process but was then told her application was unsuccessful after she made the company aware of her mental health history. She claimed she was not given feedback on her application.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the mining company pay the complainant $6,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The company also agreed to delete any health and medical information it held about the complainant.

The complainant is Deaf. She enrolled in a face-to-face class which was later delivered virtually due to Covid-19. She alleged the teacher declined her request to explain and then demonstrate artistic practices, saying this would take too long. She also said the teacher suggested she wait until face-to-face classes became available once more. The complainant said she was unable to enrol in the class because it would not be accessible to her.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent indicated a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent offer the complainant three one-hour private virtual art classes with an Auslan interpreter, valued at $450.

 

The complainant’s son has fragile X syndrome and an intellectual disability and needs assistance when handling money, paying bills and accessing his bank account. The complainant had been assisting her son with his banking at the respondent bank and claimed the bank told her that third-party authorisation would continue after he turned 18. She alleged that when her son turned 18, the bank would no longer permit her to access his account or banking details.

The bank said it allowed access to the account of a customer (whether child or adult) with disability to a relevant authorised person. When a person with disability turned 18, the authorisation was removed for their parent/guardian. If reinstating the authorisation was necessary (for example, if the customer with disability cannot manage their own finances) this could be done with the appropriate legal authority (for example, a financial management order). The bank denied discriminating against the complainant or her son, but said it was sorry that their banking experience did not meet their expectations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant’s son $3,500 in compensation for his poor customer experience.