Conciliation Register

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 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 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'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 is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. He alleged that the respondent council built a bridge that is not compliant with the relevant disability standard. He claimed pedestrians using wheelchairs were required to cross to roads, whereas pedestrians not using mobility aids were not required to do so.

The council claimed the disability standard did not apply to the bridge, but that the bridge would have been compliant. The council claimed the bridge was accessible and safe for pedestrians using wheelchairs. 

The complaint was resolved. The council agreed to meet with the complainant at the bridge to explore potential remedial work to improve safety for all pedestrians at the road crossings. The council also made changes to its accessibility planning mechanisms for future construction/capital works. The complainant agreed to make himself available to offer his accessibility expertise to council free of charge if required. 

The complainant has psychosocial disability, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks. He has two assistance dogs that assist him to stay calm and manage the effects of his disability. He alleged he was not permitted to enter his local library with his assistance dogs, despite providing evidence that they are assistance animals.

The respondent council said it had reservations about whether the dogs were trained to meet standards of behaviour acceptable for public areas.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was permitted to enter his local library with his dogs after the council commissioned an assessment of their behaviour, at no cost to the complainant.

The complainant said the respondent called her to offer cleaning services. She alleged that when she asked the price, he said ‘Oh, it’s a bloody Indian’.

The respondent recalled saying the words and expressed a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The respondent apologised to the complainant, saying that the comment was not nice, was inappropriate and that he should have known better.

The complainant is 16 years of age and has dyslexia, and has difficulty with working memory, auditory processing, reading, and spelling. She alleged the respondent education standards authority declined her requests for adjustments to accommodate her disability during year 12 exams.

The authority advised that the decision to decline the complainant’s original application for adjustments was overturned on appeal. The authority advised there was miscommunication about the appeal between the authority and the complainant’s school.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was granted the use of a computer with voice-to-text software and with timed breaks during exams.

 

The complainant said that she and her partner attended the respondent night club and they were both wearing flat leather open toed shoes. The complainant said her partner was told he was not allowed to enter because his footwear was inappropriate but she was told ‘you're a girl so your shoes are okay’. She said when she complained that this policy amounted to discrimination she was told she could not enter either.

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

The complaint was resolved. The nightclub and the staff member who refused the complainant and her partner entry wrote to the complainant apologising for the incident. The nightclub also updated its dress code policy to remove references to sex or gender.

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.