Conciliation Register

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 says he is homosexual and worked as a dispute officer with the respondent bank. He alleged a colleague made numerous comments about his sexuality and asked him if he was sexually involved with another male colleague. The complainant said he told his colleague that the comments made him uncomfortable and asked him to stop. He alleged his colleague did not take his request seriously, laughed at him and persisted with the comments. The complainant was no longer working at the bank when he made the complaint.

The bank said that following an internal investigation, the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated. The bank noted there was a bantering culture within the complainant’s team.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $2,000 and direct his former colleague to attend one-on-one training on anti-discrimination and leadership behaviours.

The complainant took time off work with the respondent government authority and was diagnosed with motor-neurone disease. He said he contacted the authority to discuss a return to work and asked if the office was wheelchair accessible, given he now used a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged the authority required him to prove his diagnosis even though he had already provided a medical certificate. The complainant thought the authority was trying to delay his return to work because the office was not wheelchair accessible. 

The government authority said the complainant had been away from work for a long time and it therefore had a responsibility to ascertain that he was fit to return to work and perform the inherent requirements of the role. The authority claimed it took all reasonable steps to facilitate the complainant’s return to work. 

 

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the government authority agreed to pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages. 

The complainant has cancer, which required surgery and radiation therapy, and a work-related arm injury. She worked as an administrative officer with the respondent community organisation and alleged the operations manager ignored her, took away her work mobile phone and reduced her tasks. She alleged she was made redundant following a period of leave to undertake cancer treatment. 

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 re-employ the complainant on the same terms and conditions under which she was previously employed. The organisation undertook to actively pursue redeployment opportunities within the organisation and to meet with the complainant each week to discuss any redeployment opportunities or applications. It was agreed that if the complainant is unable to be redeployed, she will be made redundant. If this occurred, the organisation would pay her approximately $4,600 ex-gratia, $18,240 as a severance payment, $5,700 in lieu of notice and any accrued entitlements.   

The complainant is Aboriginal and alleged that, during a conversation in the dining room of a hotel, the respondent, whom she knew in a professional capacity, made derogatory comments about Aboriginal people and referred to them as ‘gins’ and ‘coloured people’. The complainant said she found the comments and the terms used to describe Aboriginal people offensive and intimidating. 

The respondent had a different recollection of the conversation but indicated a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent apologise to the complainant and pay her $12,500. The respondent also agreed to undertake management training covering cultural awareness and discrimination law and policy. 

The complainant worked in an administrative role with the respondent electronics company. She alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by making comments of a sexual nature and talking about his penis, pornography and his sex life. She said the manager’s conduct caused her great distress, requiring her to take time off work and see a psychologist. She alleged the company refused to cover the cost of the psychologist on the basis that it was not her employer. 

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

The complainant left the employment prior to the conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages. 

The complainant was employed as a team leader with the respondent debt solutions business. She said that she took maternity leave and sought to return to work part time. The complainant alleged the company required her to work fulltime in the team leader role or to accept a role with less responsibility and lower pay. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $2,500.

The complainant has strabismus (is ‘cross-eyed’) and was employed by a labour-hire company to work at the respondent insurance company. He alleged a colleague would make fun of him and his disability, mimic him to other staff by crossing her eyes and berate him. He said he raised concerns about this conduct with a manager and was told this was his fault because he was not a good fit for the team. The complainant said he felt he had no choice but to leave the employment before the end of his contract. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurance company pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages and write to him expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The insurance company also undertook to review its workplace conduct, anti-discrimination and grievance policies. 

The complainant’s 15-year-old son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and can become distressed when in crowded and noisy environments. The complainant claimed he was unable to take his son to a multi-day agricultural show because organisers did not schedule a day with reduced noise and crowds in order to accommodate the needs of people with disability. 

The organisers of the agricultural show claimed it was not possible to set a whole day aside as a ‘quiet day’ because of the short duration of the show and the number of stakeholders involved. Organisers said they had taken several steps to try to accommodate the needs of patrons with disability and to better manage noise and crowds. 

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by organisers to: 

* Develop maps showing quieter and louder areas of the venue 

* Offer information on which times or days are least crowded 

* Provide a break-out area for people with disability 

* Update and improve the page on the show’s website dedicated to people with disability.

The complainant was employed as a store manager with the respondent retailer and injured his collar bone in a non-work-related incident. He said he was deemed unfit for any duties for four weeks and then fit for duties with restrictions on what weight he was able to lift. The complainant alleged the retailer and its owner would not allow him to return to work until he was fit to resume all duties without restriction. He claimed that, as a result, he was required to access three months of personal and annual leave. 

On being advised of the complaint, the retailer and its owner agreed to participate in conciliation. The retailer sold the outlet at which the complainant worked, and he was therefore made redundant prior to the conciliation conference. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer and its owner pay the complainant approximately $10,100 as a contribution to his legal costs and $5,000 as an ex-gratia payment. 

The complainant has a hearing impairment and worked as a nurse with the respondent health service. She advised she experienced significant hearing loss and asked to be moved to a less noisy environment. She alleged the health service told her she would be required to take leave without pay until her situation improved. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be reinstated in her role in a supported capacity. 

The complainant worked as an assistant manager with the respondent retailer. She alleged that her manager sexually harassed her by making comments including ‘if I was younger I would have a crack at you’, asking her to show him her breasts and asking about what type of underwear she wore. She claimed the manager’s behaviour continued despite her lawyer writing to him to ask that he cease the behaviour. 

On being advised 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 retailer pay the complainant $500 as compensation for legal costs. The complainant’s former manager agreed to resign and not seek re-employment with the retailer. The complainant remained employed with the retailer. 

The complainant is a lower-leg amputee and uses a prosthesis. He said that in the past, when travelling through an airport, he has advised security staff that his prosthesis may trigger alarms when scanned and officers have scanned him using a handheld wand, conducting visual inspections of metal zippers, buttons and rivets if required. He alleged that when travelling through the respondent airport, the security officer used a handheld wand as usual but then informed him that he would have to inspect his groin area due to anomalies. The complainant said he agreed to the procedure because he did not understand the officer intended to conduct a pat-down search in public. The complainant claimed he found the process very distressing.  

The airport said that passengers must pass through walk-through metal detectors as part of its primary security screening process and that, if an alarm is triggered, must undergo a secondary security screening process involving a handheld metal detector and possibly a pat-down search.  

The complaint was resolved. The airport apologised to the complainant for his experience and undertook to deliver refresher training for security screening staff on improved communication and how to sensitively assist passengers with disability. The airport invited the complainant’s advocate to talk to security screening staff about the experiences of amputees undergoing the security screening process. The airport also agreed to review its website to improve the information available to passengers with disability requiring alternative security screening processes. The airport advised it implemented a ‘Hidden Disabilities lanyard’, a program to make it easier for passengers to discreetly inform security screening staff of their need for an alternative security screening process and to prompt staff to provide such alternatives and sensitive communication. The airport undertook to discuss the issues raised by this complaint at the next meeting of a working group of airports and security contractors, to which it belonged, to discuss learnings and try to ensure consistency across all airports.  

The complainant is 15 years of age and attended the respondent private high school. The complainant has down syndrome, hypothyroidism, anxiety, scoliosis, verbal dyspraxia and sensory processing difficulties. Her psychologist said her disability manifested as a habit of spitting when frustrated, embarrassed or annoyed. The complainant claimed she was not provided reasonable adjustments in accordance with her Independent Education Plan and that her enrolment was ended after a number of occasions when she spat on teachers and students. 

The school confirmed it ended the complainant’s enrolment because of her spitting behaviour, which was considered to be deliberate and not a manifestation of her disability. The school said the behaviour was causing ongoing distress to teachers and other students and impacting negatively on student and staff wellbeing. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainant $50,000. 

The complainant has multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and is employed in an administrative role with the respondent government department. She alleged the department did not direct her colleagues to avoid wearing scents, did not allow her to purchase products to remove lingering scents, did not let her block vents near her workspace and did not permit her to relocate to a different workplace.

The government department denied discriminating against the complainant, but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department ask the complainant’s colleagues to avoid wearing scents and to be considerate of her disability. The department also agreed to remove rubber mats and air fresheners from its vehicles and to allow the complainant to relocate to a workplace that helps her better manager her disability. The department undertook to commission training on disability awareness, including multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, to be delivered to all staff.