Conciliation Register

The complainant advised she is a South Sea Islander and her husband and children are Aboriginal. She is 53 years of age and worked as an animal facility officer with the respondent local council. The complainant alleged that, during a conversation, a colleague referred repeatedly to ‘Abos’ and said words to the effect that ‘they are okay when they are not drunk’. She alleged that when seeking to use a computer the complainant was using, the same colleague said ‘It’s not my fault you are so slow cause you are old’. She alleged both conversations took place in front of a supervisor, who took no action. The complainant said she made a complaint to Human Resources, who found allegations of racism to be substantiated but asked her if she would have found it as offensive had her colleague been referring to ‘pommies’. The complainant felt she had no option but to resign.

The council confirmed that an internal investigation found the complainant’s allegations to be substantiated. The council claimed all the recommendations of the investigator’s report were implemented.

The complaint was resolved. The council assured the complainant of its commitment to cultural diversity as reflected in its policies, including its code of conduct. The council undertook to include diversity as a topic in induction training and to include a leaflet on cultural diversity in its new induction pack.

The complainant was employed as an office manager by the respondent plant equipment supplier.  She alleged a manager sexually harassed her, including by regularly telling her she looked beautiful, propositioning her for sex, trying to kiss her, pressing up against her and inappropriately touching her. She claimed the company did not respond appropriately to her complaint about the manager’s conduct, accused her of making the complaint for financial gain and subsequently terminated her employment. 

The complainant’s former manager claimed that any conduct of a sexual nature was instigated by the complainant. The company claimed the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated and that her employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide the complainant with a statement of service and pay her $29,000. 

The complainant is 72 years of age and claimed the respondent financial institution declined his application for a credit card despite him meeting relevant income threshold requirements. He claimed the financial institution told him that his age was a factor in the decision to decline the application.

The financial institution confirmed it declined the complainant’s application for a credit card and explained that the process by which ability to meet payments was assessed could underestimate retirees’ ability to pay because it focused on taxable income. 

The complaint was resolved. The financial institution offered the complainant a credit card following discussion of information relevant to the complainant's ability to meet payments.

The complainant has muscular dystrophy and has difficulty walking. He alleged he was unable to access the respondent supermarket outlet because there was a high step at the front entrance and the accessible entrance was locked.

The supermarket advised that, in response to the complaint, it would keep the accessible entrance open during business hours.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket pay the complainant $5,000.

 

The complainant has a limited ability to lift weight and move his arms due to undergoing a quadruple bypass to manage a heart condition. He erected a temporary pergola in his backyard, as he was unable to operate a different type of shade structure because of his disability. He alleged the respondent owners corporation failed to approve his application for the pergola as a reasonable adjustment and directed him to remove it. The complainant also alleged the respondent strata management company was responsible for the discrimination.

The respondents claimed the complainant erected the pergola without first seeking permission to do so. They also claimed that, when he did seek permission, he failed to advise the respondents of his disability and need for that particular shade structure to accommodate his disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the owner's corporation grant permission for the complainant to keep the pergola subject to a review of the complainant's ongoing need for the pergola on medical grounds in six months’ time.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal to alleviate the effects of a number of disabilities, including social anxiety, Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The complainant alleged staff at the respondent grocery store told her she was not allowed in with her dog, despite her explaining it was an assistance animal. The complainant said she was ultimately served, but felt very upset.

The store owner explained he had been unaware of his obligations under federal discrimination law and served the complainant once she explained her dog was an assistance animal and should be allowed in the store.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the store owner place an ‘Assistance Dogs Welcome’ sign in his store and write to the complainant expressing regret for the incident.

The complainant worked as a sales assistant and then as a store manager with the respondent furniture company. She alleged that two male directors and a male colleague sexually harassed her over several years, including by drawing sexually explicit cartoons and showing them to her, telling her she needed a ‘boob job’, making comments of a sexual nature, telling sexually explicit stories and showing other colleagues sexually explicit videos.  The complainant claimed other directors took no action in response to her concerns about this conduct and so she felt she had no option but to resign.

The respondents claimed the complainant was a willing participant in any conduct of a sexual nature that did take place and that she engaged in like conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents would jointly pay the complainant $30,000 and that the company will develop a discrimination and harassment policy which will include discussion of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Each individual respondent also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint and to undertake training delivered by an external provider on discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

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 has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other cognitive impairments and resided in community housing operated by the respondent non-government organisation. He said he found it difficult to complete forms, write letters or understand lengthy written information because of his disability. He alleged staff of the organisation refused to provide him with assistance to lodge complaints about his property or to allow him to record conversations in order to have an accurate record of those conversations. He claimed his tenancy became untenable and he had no option but to end his tenancy arrangement, rendering him homeless. The complainant was unable to apply for alternative public or community housing because he was in debt to the organisation.

The community housing provider claimed that its staff provided assistance to the complainant to lodge complaints and raise concerns about his tenancy. The organisation said it had attempted to discourage the complainant from ending his tenancy but was unsuccessful.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community housing provider waive the complainant’s debt of approximately $3,700 and refund his $1,400 bond. The organisation also undertook to ensure staff continue to provide assistance to tenants with disability who experience difficulties in completing forms or other documents related to their tenancy. Finally, the organisation agreed to remind staff of obligations to provide reasonable adjustments to clients with disability.

The complainant has autism and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has an assistance dog. She alleged the respondent public hospital denied her access to certain departments of the hospital when she attended appointments with her assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved. The complainant and her support person met with senior hospital staff to discuss the complainant’s need for an assistance animal and the provision of medical services to the complainant. As an outcome of this meeting, the hospital developed an agreed patient management plan.  

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.