Conciliation Register

The complainant has a spinal cord injury and uses an electric wheelchair. The complainant said he booked a flight with the respondent airline and was informed that, in accordance with its policies, airline staff would assist him to transfer from his wheelchair to his seat on the plane. The complainant alleged that on arriving to board the flight, he was informed staff could not assist him to transfer to his seat and he was therefore unable to board the flight, as he is unable to transfer independently from his wheelchair. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline reimburse the complainant for his out-of-pocket expenses associated with the flight, including travel to and from the airport. The airline also agreed to pay the complainant $12,000 as general damages. The airline agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the incident and undertook to deliver disability awareness training to staff, as well as training on assisting passengers to transfer from a wheelchair to the seat. 

The complainant’s son is eight years of age and has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, learning difficulties and sensory processing difficulties. The complainant alleged the respondent government public housing provider placed her and her son in unsuitable accommodation. In particular, she claimed the home was too crowded and did not offer enough space to set up occupational therapy equipment needed to manage her son’s disability. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant enter a lease for a larger home and receive $2,000 credit into their rental account. 

The complainant is Aboriginal and has post-traumatic stress disorder and other disabilities. He was placed with the respondent cleaning company by a disability employment service. He claimed he was triggered by a workplace incident where he was accidentally locked in a room for a time. He said he asked to always work with a 'buddy' but this request was denied. He said his employment was terminated after he brought a family member to work to accommodate his disability. 

The company said it was unaware of the complainant's disability or any need for adjustments. The company said all cleaners work with a 'buddy'. The company confirmed it terminated the complainant’s employment after he brought a family member onto a work site on multiple occasions against his manager's direction. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would characterise the end of the employment relationship as a resignation and provide the complainant with a statement of service. The company agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret that there was miscommunication and he felt unsupported in the workplace. The company undertook to investigate the provision of training on mental health for its staff and to review its policies on supporting employees with disability. The company also agreed to pay the complainant $4,750 as general damages. 

The complainant has a lung disease and believed she would be eligible for an exemption from mask-wearing requirements imposed in response to COVID-19. She said she felt breathless when attending the respondent bank and so pulled her mask below her chin. She alleged a bank attendant and the branch manager insisted the mask must cover her nose and mouth. 

On being notified of the complaint the bank indicated a willingness to attempt to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $1,500. 

The complainant is Vietnamese and attended an outlet of the respondent telecommunications retailer. He alleged he was refused an advertised concession discount and his concession card was not accepted because of his race. He alleged customers who were not Vietnamese received more favourable treatment. 

The telecommunications retailer advised the complainant could not be offered the discount retrospectively. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the telecommunications retailer deliver training to the staff involved and write to the complainant apologising for his in-store experience. The retailer also offered he complainant approximately $300 in credit, an amount equivalent to the discount he was seeking. 

The complainant was employed in a human resources role with the respondent property management company. She advised she was in a consensual romantic relationship with a manager that began before she was employed with the company and ended during her employment. The complainant alleged that after the end of the relationship, the manager sexually harassed her, including by sending her text messages about the women he would like to ‘f**k’ and telling her she should provide access as ‘every man likes pussy’. The complainant advised she was moved to a different reporting line after raising concerns about the manager’s conduct with senior management. She alleged the manager then told her she was not allowed to come into the office and her employment was terminated. 

On being notified on the complaint, the respondent indicated a willingness to attempt to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $35,000. 

The complainant advised he has chronic mental health issues and lives in public housing. He alleged he was not allowed to keep a pet snake in his apartment while other residents were allowed to have pets. 

The respondent public housing provider advised pets were not allowed in the complainant’s apartment unless an exemption had been granted. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant would be granted an exemption allowing him to keep his snake so long as he provided assurances that he would keep the snake in a safe and secure manner. 

The complainant has psychosocial disability, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, and has an assistance dog. The complainant owned an apartment and alleged the body corporate did not recognise his dog as an assistance animal. He said the body corporate’s newsletter said only guide dogs would be permitted to access communal areas. The complainant alleged the on-site manager refused to give him access to the pool area to toilet his dog and said words to the effect that ‘there is no way that three-month old puny is a registered assistance dog’. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the body corporate express its regret for the events giving rise to the complaint at a meeting of the body corporate.

The complainant is African and has dark skin. He alleged colleagues made offensive comments related to his race, including that he only looked good in a mask because of his flat nose, he was another colleague’s ‘black boy’, and the he only has a ‘big dick’ because he is black. 

Upon being notified 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 company pay the complainant $15,000. Two of the individual respondents agreed to write to the complainant apologising for their comments. The company undertook to review its anti-discrimination and bullying policies and require the individual respondents to undertake revised anti-discrimination training. 

The complainant was employed as a traffic controller with the respondent traffic management business. She alleged one of the managing directors sexually harassed her at a Christmas party by pulling her towards him and rubbing her body, and later sending her a text message and leaving a voicemail message asking, ‘where is my f**k?’. She also alleged other colleagues propositioned her for sex. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.