Conciliation Register

The complainant has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, depression and anxiety and was employed with the respondent local council. He said he experienced a panic attack at work arising from issues in his personal life. He alleged a manager disclosed information about his disability and attraction to a former supervisor without his permission. He also alleged the council did not permit him to return to his substantive role and required him to undergo numerous health assessments, despite him being deemed fit to return to work.

The council claimed it was not appropriate for the complainant to return to his substantive position for health and well-being reasons due to his attraction to his former supervisor and his mental health history.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council pay the complainant approximately $95,000 and contribute to the cost of him accessing an employment services provider. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant was employed with the respondent government agency. She alleged that a much older member of senior management groomed her over a period of time in a manner that constituted sexual harassment, including by approaching her at work and work drinks, connecting with her on a social networking site and privately messaging her on that site to tell her she was amazing.  She said she became anxious because colleagues began commenting on the senior manager’s behaviour towards her. The complainant claimed she made a number of complaints about this conduct to management, but no action was taken. She said she worked from home in order to avoid the senior manager and eventually left her employment.

The agency advised the senior manager’s conduct was found to breach relevant policies and procedures governing the conduct of public servants. The agency advised the senior manager had resigned before a final decision was made as to whether his employment would be terminated. The agency said the senior manager’s behaviour was unacceptable and outlined the steps it had taken since receiving the complaint to ensure that the workplace was safe, including implementing structural change by ensuring gender equality in senior management and developing a diversity and inclusion plan.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $40,000 as general damages. The agency and the senior manager also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant applied for a position as a support worker with the respondent community organisation. She said the organisation withdrew an offer of casual employment once aware of her criminal record.The complainant had been convicted of common assault on three occasions with the most recent conviction occurring eight years earlier. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation employ the complainant as a support worker.

 

The complainant has anxiety, depression and panic attacks and worked as a security guard at the premises of a government entity. He advised he was required to take time off work to attend appointments with his psychologist and to attend hospital to manage his disability. He alleged the government entity asked his employer, a private security company, to remove him from the site, ‘get rid’ of him and ‘fire’ him because he required a prolonged period of hospitalisation to undertake treatment for his disability.

The government entity claimed it was supportive of the complainant’s need to access leave to accommodate his disability, but needed to fill the role on an ongoing basis. The government agency said a person to fulfil the ongoing vacancy was sourced from another company because the complainant’s employer was unable to offer a suitably qualified candidate.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government entity pay the complainant $10,000.

The complainant has post-stroke hemiplegia, aphasia and depression, and has an assistance animal. He booked a two-night stay with the respondent resort, which would cost approximately $350 and was informed shortly before he was due to check-in that a $150 fee would apply because he was accompanied by an assistance animal. The complainant said he asked to see a copy of the relevant policy but it was not provided to him. He also alleged the resort declined to waive the fee despite his advice that his dog was trained, licensed as an assistance animal and non-shedding.

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

The complaint was resolved. The resort apologised to the complainant for his experience, offered him a complimentary one-night stay and raised the complainant's experience with management, resulting in a review of policy and the publication of new guidelines regarding assistance animals.

The complainant is from Thailand and worked as a nurse at the respondent aged care facility. She alleged a colleague made a number of racially offensive comments towards her, such as aggressively telling the complainant to speak English and telling the complainant she did not understand the complainant’s culture.

The aged care facility advised that, in response to the complainant’s allegations, it had issued her colleague with a warning. The aged care facility had also delivered an anti-discrimination awareness session for all staff, which the named colleague was required to attend.

The complaint was resolved. In addition to the outcomes already implemented by the aged care facility, the complainant’s colleague apologised to the complainant. The complainant remained employed with the aged care facility and continued to work alongside her colleague.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and has been issued with a disability parking permit by the relevant authority. She alleged the respondent parking station issued her with a contravention notice after she remained parked in an accessible parking bay longer than the allocated time. She claimed the parking station should allow persons who have disability parking permits longer parking periods than those without such permits but was told the parking station charged all those using its service the same rates.  

The parking station operator noted that many people with disability used the parking station to facilitate access to nearby medical services. It claimed placing two-hour limits on parking was reasonable to maximise access to the parking station.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the parking station convert two of its two-hour accessible parking bays to four-hour accessible parking bays. The parking station also agreed to improve signage about the location of payment points, promote its online payment system, show the complainant how to use the online payment system and forward feedback from the complainant to the provider of its payment machines.