Conciliation Register

The complainant is blind. His employer offered him the opportunity to participate in a postgraduate leadership program delivered by the respondent not-for-profit organisation. The complainant said he informed the organisation of his disability on enrolment and requested adjustments to accommodate his disability, including the provision of reading materials in an accessible format. The complainant alleged the organisation failed to provide him with printed materials in an accessible format and required him to participate in group activities being hosted on an online platform that was not accessible to his screen reading software. He also alleged the organisation refused to allow him to enrol in other core subjects.

The organisation claimed it provided reasonable adjustments to accommodate the Complainant’s disability. The organisation said the online learning platform was a new platform and the complainant did not advise the organisation of any difficulties he was experiencing in accessing the platform unless prompted.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation develop and publish a disability action plan and make a financial contribution to a literature review assessing leadership pathways for people with disability in the Complainant’s profession.

The complainant has a hearing impairment and alleged the respondent subscription broadcaster did not offer closed captions, meaning he was unable to access programs.

The broadcaster advised it was in the process of introducing closed captioning in its broadcasts. The broadcaster indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the broadcaster offer the complainant free access to captioned programming on a related broadcasting service until closed captions are available.

The complainant has anxiety and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, as well as other medical conditions. He applied for total and permanent disability, income protection and life insurance with the respondent insurer through the respondent superannuation fund. The complainant alleged his application for life insurance was originally approved with certain exclusions and his applications for total and permanent disability and income protection insurance were originally declined because of his disability. The complainant alleges that after he provided additional information about his disability, the insurer removed the exclusions to his life insurance policy and issued him with total and permanent disability and income protection insurance policies with a blanket mental health exclusion. The complainant claimed his mental health issues were well managed and had not resulted in him being unable to work at any point.

The insurer claimed that its decisions were based on statistical and actuarial data on which it was reasonable to rely and that its decisions were therefore not unlawful.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $10,000 and commit to the ongoing training of staff on mental health issues. The insurer also agreed to refund the complainant the cost of his policies to date should he wish to change insurance providers by a specified date. The insurer and superannuation fund agreed to write to the complainant apologising that his customer experience had not met his expectations.

The complainant uses a walking frame to aid mobility. She advised the respondent sporting team moved to a new venue and patrons were required to use stairs to access front row seating. She claimed she had previously been allowed to pass through a restricted secure area to access seating, but this arrangement was no longer available.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent allow the complainant alternative access to the front row, accessible seating.

 

The complainant has anxiety and depression. She is enrolled in a bachelor’s degree with the respondent university and resides in student accommodation. The complainant said that the university had previously accommodated her need to take time off her studies to manage her disability. However, she claimed the university had recently started a ‘show cause’ process due to an unsuccessful year of study which could result in her being excluded from the university for five years. She claimed the university did not give due consideration to medical evidence about the impact of her disability on her studies and resulting need for reasonable adjustment.

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

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to apply the complainant’s late withdrawals retrospectively, so she did not fail subjects. The university agreed to allow the complainant to defer her studies, beyond the standard referral period if required. The university also undertook to prioritise the complainant’s application for accommodation on campus.

The complainant is homosexual and worked for the respondent university. He claimed a colleague told another colleague that the complainant was sending him ‘gross’ photos and that he did not want to work with the complainant because of his sexual orientation. The complainant alleged that the university terminated his contract when he asked not to be allocated shifts with the colleague.

The university did not agree with the complainant’s view of events but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $1,000.

The complainant worked as a childcare worker for the respondent childcare centre. She developed a pregnancy-related medical condition and asked for adjustments to accommodate her condition, including reduced hours and weightlifting restrictions. She said these requests were accommodated initially. However, she alleged that after a period of leave, she was informed that on her return, she would be primarily performing kitchen duties, which involved repetitive lifting, bending and standing. She said that when she told the childcare centre that these duties would not be suitable, she was placed on special parental leave. 

The childcare centre denied discriminating against the complainant on the grounds of her pregnancy or disability but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The childcare centre agreed to pay the complainant $35,000 as an eligible termination payment and in compensation for accrued entitlements and to provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant alleged that the respondent software business terminated his employment in a sales role three weeks after recruiting him because of his criminal record. The complainant said he had left his employment with another employer to take up the position with the business. The complainant was charged with, but not convicted of, assault and domestic violence related offences six years earlier.  

The software business said that its decision to terminate the complainant's employment was based on a legitimate contractual right to terminate employment if an employee did not return a satisfactory criminal record check. The business agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant approximately $8,500. 

The complainant is deaf and worked for the respondent vocational training provider. He alleged that his employer and his manager discriminated against him on the ground of his disability, including by excluding him, failing to install visual fire alarms throughout the premises and failing to install a visual doorbell to the staff room. 

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

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The vocational training provider agreed to pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and to re-credit personal leave used by the complainant. The vocational training provider also undertook to meet with the complainant to better understand his concerns and to install visual fire alarms and beacons throughout the building.

The complainant is from China and claimed that when she contacted the respondent law enforcement agency to report an incident of domestic violence, she was not provided with a Mandarin language interpreter, despite requesting one. She alleged her claim was not adequately investigated and she was not assisted to find safe accommodation because she was unable to effectively communicate with investigating officers. She also alleged officers made comments regarding her race, including that she should return to China. 

The respondent law enforcement agency said attending officers made an assessment that the complainant did not require an interpreter and would be able to communicate effectively with them in English. The agency said the Complainant’s allegations of domestic violence were not pursued because she provided inconsistent versions of the events and there was an absence of supporting evidence. The officers denied making comments about the complainant’s race.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $5,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.   

The complainant became pregnant while undertaking veterinary nursing training with the respondent vocational training provider. She said the training included activities that could pose a risk to her unborn baby and the provider allowed her to commence a new course, though not to withdraw from the training. The complainant said she began a period of maternity leave but was still required to complete coursework and practical requirements.

The vocational training provider denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the vocational training provider pay the complainant $325 as a refund for fees associated with the course and review its student handbook to ensure options available to pregnant students were clarified.

The complainant was employed with the respondent investment firm as a business partner in corporate trust. She alleged that while she was on maternity leave to have her third child, the firm employed someone to permanently fill her role without consulting her or discussing her return to work. She said that when she sought to return to work on a part-time basis, the firm asked her to move to a comparable role as a business consultant. However, the complainant alleged that when she commenced the role it became clear to her the role was a demotion. She claimed the firm was not responsive to her concerns.

The firm denied discriminating against the complainant but indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The firm agreed to pay the complainant $42,000 as general damages, provide her with a reference and provide her with a statement of service. The firm also agreed to develop a strategy to inform staff of the Complainant’s resignation.

The Complainant’s primary-school-aged son has autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and motor dyspraxia. She said her son had been enrolled in a vacation care program and after-school care program with the respondent out of school hours care provider. The complainant alleged the service declined to enrol her son for future programs because of the cost and other difficulties associated with employing an additional educator to support her son.  

The service said funding and an additional educator was in place to accommodate the Complainant’s son. However, the service noted that the complainant had failed to submit the relevant enrolment forms for her son to attend vacation or after-school care programs. The service also emphasised the importance of the complainant providing notice of her son’s non-attendance, as the service had previously been required to cover the costs of an additional educator because her son had failed to attend without notice.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the Complainant’s son would attend the out of school hours care service and an undertaking by the complainant to notify the service should her son be unable to attend.

The complainant is a 19-year-old Aboriginal woman. She alleged that colleagues at the fast food outlet where she worked made racist and derogatory comments about Aboriginal people. She alleged that, on one occasion, her manager said she did not like 'those dirty Aboriginals'. She claimed she raised the issue with the store owner, but nothing was done. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign. 

The store owner and franchise advised that the store owner had investigated the complainant's claims and provided statements given by the two colleagues concerned. The respondents said the complainant's former manager had been issued with a formal warning. The respondents said no action was taken against the other colleague because there was no evidence that he made inappropriate statements and because the complainant was alleged to have made offensive comments about his sexuality. 

The complaint was resolved. The store owner and franchise undertook to direct the two staff members referred to in the complaint to undertake an online training module on appropriate workplace conduct. They also agreed to pay the complainant $3,000 net and write to her apologising for the comment and any distress the complainant experienced. The franchise also undertook to investigate the workplace culture at the outlet where the complainant worked. 

The complainant worked for the respondent real estate agency and alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by touching her on the legs and thighs, massaging her shoulders and making sexually explicit comments. She alleged that after she complained about the conduct, the agency victimised her by removing her from two projects as lead agent and performance managing her. She further alleged the agency discriminated against her on the grounds of her sex and pregnancy by offering male agents lead roles and not her. The complainant ceased working for the agency and commenced worker's compensation proceedings. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents pay the complainant $168,750. This figure was not inclusive of workers compensation payments already made, but also settled the ongoing worker's compensation dispute.