Conciliation Register

The complainant was employed as a team leader with the respondent debt solutions business. She said that she took maternity leave and sought to return to work part time. The complainant alleged the company required her to work fulltime in the team leader role or to accept a role with less responsibility and lower pay. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,500.

The complainant worked as an assistant manager with the respondent retailer. She alleged that her manager sexually harassed her by making comments including ‘if I was younger I would have a crack at you’, asking her to show him her breasts and asking about what type of underwear she wore. She claimed the manager’s behaviour continued despite her lawyer writing to him to ask that he cease the behaviour. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer pay the complainant $500 as compensation for legal costs. The complainant’s former manager agreed to resign and not seek re-employment with the retailer. The complainant remained employed with the retailer. 

The complainant was employed by the respondent multinational corporation. She alleged her manager discouraged her from applying for a national role after he became aware she intended to undertake in-vitro fertilisation. She also alleged that the company made her role redundant while retaining a less experienced male in a similar role.

The company said the work formerly performed by the complainant was transferred to a national team as part of a restructure. The company said the male referred to by the complainant had twenty years’ experience. The company claimed conversations about potential roles for the complainant were based on her welfare and not intended to discourage her from applying for roles.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $32,000 general damages and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant is employed as a retail assistant with the respondent retailer. She alleged the company’s appearance standards policy, which had recently been circulated, required female employees to wear make-up and used gendered language and stereotypes. For example, she said the policy required women to wear their hair tied back, rather than requiring any employee with long hair to tie the hair back.

The company said the policy was developed in response to concerns that some staff members were not appropriately groomed. The company sells cosmetics and said it therefore wished to ensure staff were properly groomed and wore make-up.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company redraft the policy to adopt less gendered language and requirements. The company undertook to send the policy to all store managers for distribution to staff. The company agreed to include an apology for any offence caused to staff by the previous policy in its email to managers.

The complainant alleged the respondent employment agency posted an advertisement seeking a ‘young’ security professional. 

The employment agency said a mistake had been made and there had been no intent to exclude any person from applying, or being considered, for the role on the ground of age. The agency undertook to amend the advertisement and deliver anti-discrimination training to new staff. The agency also advised it would contact the complainant to apologise for the incident. 

The complainant considered the action taken by the employment agency in response to being notified of the complaint resolved the matter. 

The complainant was employed as a records officer with the respondent government agency. He had degeneration of his knees and ankles, which made it very difficult for him to deliver mail. After being provided with relevant medical information, the agency removed him from mailroom delivery duties. The complainant alleged that the agency then denied him acting-up opportunities and informed him he would not be considered for promotions in the mailroom, including a supervisor role that did not involve walking. The complainant said he made an internal complaint about the issue but was not satisfied with the outcome. 

The respondent said the complainant was not offered the opportunity to act in the team leader position because the position required work at different locations. The agency said concerns were held that the work could exacerbate the complainant’s disability. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The agency also undertook to meet with the complainant to set out what medical information he may need to provide and to explore future professional opportunities. The agency also undertook to deliver training to management on responding to grievances and communicating effectively with staff.  

The complainant has depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and has an assistance animal. He alleged the respondent accommodation provider denied him accommodation when made aware that he has an assistance dog, citing a ‘no pets’ policy. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the accommodation provider write to the complainant apologising for the distress he experienced as a result of the incident, acknowledging that assistance animals are not pets and confirming that people with assistance animals will be offered accommodation in the future. The accommodation provider also undertook to develop a policy to prevent disability discrimination which would include provisions relating to assistance animals. 

The complainant worked as an administration assistant with the respondent infrastructure company. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by making sexual advances by text message, commenting on her breasts, inviting her to a hotel and offering to go to her place and give her a massage. She said that she complained to her manager’s supervisor about the conduct. She claimed the manager’s supervisor told her there was insufficient evidence for any action to be taken and recommended she delete the telephone messages. 

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $40,000 as general damages and provide her with a reference. The complainant’s former manager apologised to her for the distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint. The company undertook to commission training for all staff on sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, the company’s complaint process and the obligations of staff and managers. 

The complainant worked as an administration assistant with the respondent infrastructure company. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by making sexual advances by text message, commenting on her breasts, inviting her to a hotel and offering to go to her place and give her a massage. She said that she complained to her manager’s supervisor about the conduct. She claimed the manager’s supervisor told her there was insufficient evidence for any action to be taken and recommended she delete the telephone messages.

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $40,000 as general damages and provide her with a reference. The complainant’s former manager apologised to her for the distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint. The company undertook to commission training for all staff on sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, the company’s complaint process and the obligations of staff and managers. 

The complainant is a lower-leg amputee and uses a prosthesis. He said that in the past, when travelling through an airport, he has advised security staff that his prosthesis may trigger alarms when scanned and officers have scanned him using a handheld wand, conducting visual inspections of metal zippers, buttons and rivets if required. He alleged that when travelling through the respondent airport, the security officer used a handheld wand as usual but then informed him that he would have to inspect his groin area due to anomalies. The complainant said he agreed to the procedure because he did not understand the officer intended to conduct a pat-down search in public. The complainant claimed he found the process very distressing.  

The airport said that passengers must pass through walk-through metal detectors as part of its primary security screening process and that, if an alarm is triggered, must undergo a secondary security screening process involving a handheld metal detector and possibly a pat-down search.  

The complaint was resolved. The airport apologised to the complainant for his experience and undertook to deliver refresher training for security screening staff on improved communication and how to sensitively assist passengers with disability. The airport invited the complainant’s advocate to talk to security screening staff about the experiences of amputees undergoing the security screening process. The airport also agreed to review its website to improve the information available to passengers with disability requiring alternative security screening processes. The airport advised it implemented a ‘Hidden Disabilities lanyard’, a program to make it easier for passengers to discreetly inform security screening staff of their need for an alternative security screening process and to prompt staff to provide such alternatives and sensitive communication. The airport undertook to discuss the issues raised by this complaint at the next meeting of a working group of airports and security contractors, to which it belonged, to discuss learnings and try to ensure consistency across all airports.  

The complainant is 15 years of age and attended the respondent private high school. The complainant has down syndrome, hypothyroidism, anxiety, scoliosis, verbal dyspraxia and sensory processing difficulties. Her psychologist said her disability manifested as a habit of spitting when frustrated, embarrassed or annoyed. The complainant claimed she was not provided reasonable adjustments in accordance with her Independent Education Plan and that her enrolment was ended after a number of occasions when she spat on teachers and students. 

The school confirmed it ended the complainant’s enrolment because of her spitting behaviour, which was considered to be deliberate and not a manifestation of her disability. The school said the behaviour was causing ongoing distress to teachers and other students and impacting negatively on student and staff wellbeing. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $50,000. 

The complainant has multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and is employed in an administrative role with the respondent government department. She alleged the department did not direct her colleagues to avoid wearing scents, did not allow her to purchase products to remove lingering scents, did not let her block vents near her workspace and did not permit her to relocate to a different workplace.

The government department denied discriminating against the complainant, but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department ask the complainant’s colleagues to avoid wearing scents and to be considerate of her disability. The department also agreed to remove rubber mats and air fresheners from its vehicles and to allow the complainant to relocate to a workplace that helps her better manager her disability. The department undertook to commission training on disability awareness, including multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, to be delivered to all staff. 

The complainant is employed as a retail assistant with the respondent retailer. She alleged the company’s appearance standards policy, which had recently been circulated, required female employees to wear make-up and used gendered language and stereotypes. For example, she said the policy required women to wear their hair tied back, rather than requiring any employee with long hair to tie the hair back. 

The company said the policy was developed in response to concerns that some staff members were not appropriately groomed. The company sells cosmetics and said it therefore wished to ensure staff were properly groomed and wore make-up. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company redraft the policy to adopt less gendered language and requirements. The company undertook to send the policy to all store managers for distribution to staff. The company agreed to include an apology for any offence caused to staff by the previous policy in its email to managers. 

The complainant contacted the respondent company for service because she was experiencing problems with appliances she had purchased from the company. She claimed when she called the mobile number of the technician for the company to enquire about the status of the repair, she heard another male answer the phone and refer to her as  ‘some bitch’ to the technician. She claimed the technician said sorry and then said she had called a wrong number and ‘you know how men are’. She said she told the technician that she did call the right number, she should be referred to by her name and no woman should be called a ‘bitch’.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,500, provide training to all staff on anti-discrimination and review it's policy on anti-discrimination.

The complainant’s 10-year-old son has anxiety and processing speed difficulties and attended the respondent public primary school.  The complainant alleged the school discriminated against her son on the ground of disability including by failing to develop a behaviour support plan, allowing him to be bullied, suspending him on a number of occasions and restricting his hours of attendance. She also alleged the school’s principal assaulted her son. The complainant alleged that following a complaint about the school’s treatment of her son, a departmental representative victimised her by failing to provide her with information about her son’s schooling or the progress of the complaint. The complainant’s son no longer attended the school. 

On being advised of the complaint, the school and relevant government department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $40,000 and the principal write to her son apologising for the way he felt during his time at the school and acknowledging he could have helped him more.