Discrimination on other grounds in the area of employment/occupation
For complaints conciliated and finalised in the period of 01 Jul - Dec 2009
| Grounds | Religion (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Apology - private Policy change/change in practice (internal staff) |
| Compensation | |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant, who is of Baha'i faith, applied for a position as chaplain of a local government school. She alleged the chaplaincy service that was engaged by the local school told her she was not eligible for the position because of her religion. The chaplaincy service advised it was established by a number of Christian churches and that all of its chaplains are required to be actively engaged with one of its member churches. The respondent school confirmed it had chosen to use the respondent chaplaincy service. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the relevant government department would provide the complainant with an apology and explore options to ensure that schools are able to appoint a chaplain from any religious denomination. The chaplaincy service also agreed to clearly state on application forms that applicants must be active members of one of the member churches in order to be eligible for appointment. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $250 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant said she has a criminal record for fraud relating to overpayment of welfare benefits. The complainant claimed she had worked with the respondent airline for a period prior to her conviction and then after her conviction, applied for a counter staff position. She alleged she was refused the position because of her criminal record. The respondent company said it had not retained records relating to the recruitment but denied that the complainant's criminal record would have been the reason why her application was unsuccessful. The complaint was resolved with the respondent agreeing to pay the complainant $250 as reimbursement for expenses she may have incurred during the recruitment process. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation Reference/Statement of Service provided |
| Compensation | $1,000 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant advised that in 2001 she was convicted of three counts of obtaining welfare benefits to which she was not entitled. The complainant said she had been employed by the respondent aged care provider for over three years in positions of cook and personal care attendant. The complainant claimed that when her employer became aware of her criminal record, her employment was terminated. The parties agreed to attempt to resolve the complaint by conciliation prior to the respondent providing a formal response. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent company would provide the complainant with a written reference and pay her $1,000 general damages. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Employment - other opportunity provided |
| Compensation | |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant advised he has a criminal record in relation to a 2008 conviction for ‘indecent exposure’. He claimed that prior to his conviction, he was employed by the respondent company as a cleaner/labourer. He claimed that after being released from prison he was offered a position with the company but shortly after commencing work, his employment was terminated. He alleged this was because of his criminal record. The respondent company denied that the complainant's criminal record was the reason for his employment being terminated. The company said the decision was due to economic reasons and as the complainant was the last person to be employed, he was the first to be terminated. The complaint was resolved on the basis of an undertaking from the company that the complainant could apply for future positions and that he would be offered employment if considered suitable. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Employment - job offer |
| Compensation | |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant’s criminal record indicates that during the 1970s he was convicted for break and enter, car theft and malicious damage and was imprisoned for 2 years. The complainant applied for a gardening/maintenance position with a government agency. The complainant said he did not get the job and was told this was because the agency needed to protect its reputation in the community and so couldn’t employ someone who had been in prison. On being notified of the complaint, the agency agreed to participate in a conciliation conference. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency would employ the complainant as a general assistant. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $5,000 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant has a criminal record for assault and forcible confinement relating to a domestic incident four years ago. The complainant was offered an IT help desk position with the respondent financial institution. The complainant said that when he disclosed his criminal record, the offer of employment was withdrawn. The complainant claimed his criminal record did not prevent him from doing the inherent requirements of the position. On being advised of the complaint, the respondent company agreed to participate in conciliation. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would pay the complainant $5,000 compensation. |
| Grounds | Trade union activity (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $4,000 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant was employed on a casual basis with the respondent human resources company and was a union member and delegate. The complainant's employment was terminated after approximately 3 months because of misconduct related to alleged misuse of the company's email system. The complainant claimed other employees accused of similar acts were not dismissed. The complainant said he was treated more harshly than other employees because he was a union delegate. The company denied discrimination on the ground of trade union activity. The company said the complainant was treated in the same way as the other employees who were also dismissed at that time because of misconduct. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would pay the complainant $4,000 in general damages. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $2,930.84 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant advised that he was charged with a number of driving and vehicle related offences in 2006 and 2007. The complainant claimed the respondent labour hire firm placed him in a role with the respondent company that involved driving. The complainant claimed the host employer declined his application for ongoing employment and terminated his placement because of his criminal record. The respondent employer said the complainant's criminal record rendered him unable to perform the inherent requirements of the job. The labour hire company said it attempted to contact the complainant to assist him obtain other employment but the complainant did not follow up with them. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that each company would pay the complainant an amount equivalent to two weeks salary. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Apology - private Policy - anti-discrimination/EEO policy reviewed/revised |
| Compensation | |
| Complaint Summary | The complaint advised he has criminal convictions for drug use, attempted theft and drink driving. The complainant was employed with the respondent service organisation as a care worker. He claimed his employment was terminated by the respondent because of his criminal record. The respondent organisation said the complainant's employment was terminated because he did not fully disclose his criminal record, namely, the drink driving charge. The organisation also said that in the position, the complainant would be required to work alone with vulnerable people and may also be required to transport clients in his vehicle. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation would provide the complainant with a written apology and revise aspects of its recruitment and criminal record policies to address procedural issues raised by the complainant. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
|---|---|
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $2,480 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant said he was convicted of 'obtaining money by deception' and sentenced to a period of home detention. During this period of detention he enrolled in a course with the respondent education provider and disclosed his criminal record. The complainant said he was initially told his criminal record would not be a problem but about half way through the course, was informed he could not continue with his studies because of his criminal record. The education provider said that due to the severity and recent nature of the complainant's criminal record, he would not be able to participate in the work placement which was an essential part of the course and which involved working with vulnerable people in the community. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent would pay the complainant $2,480 which represented reimbursement of his course fees and an amount for general damages. |
| Grounds | Trade union activity (ILO111) |
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation |
| Compensation | $10,300 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant was employed as a storeman with the respondent retail company. The complainant said his manager asked him to attend a meeting to discuss workplace issues and he took his union delegate to the meeting. The complainant claimed that immediately following the meeting, he was placed on a roster which required him to do humiliating duties and he alleged this amounted to trade union activity discrimination. The complainant also alleged disability discrimination. He said he told his manager that he had a sleeping condition which affected his ability to do the early shift and despite providing medical certificates, his employment was terminated because of his lack of punctuality. The respondent company denied discriminating against the complainant. The company said the complainant's roster was changed to enable him to start later and his employment was terminated due to poor performance. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company would pay the complainant $10,300 in general damages. |
| Grounds | Religion (ILO111) |
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation Training - named individual(s) to undertake anti-discrimination/EEO training Apology - private |
| Compensation | $8,000 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant was employed as a teacher on a yearly contract basis by the respondent religious education provider. The complainant was not of the same religion as the education provider. The complainant claimed her teaching contract was not renewed because of her religion. The respondent denied that the complainant's contract was not renewed because of her religion. The respondent claimed the complainant's contract was not renewed due to operational considerations. The respondent said that although the teacher who ultimately replaced the complainant was of the same religion as the education provider, it was her qualifications as opposed to her religion which made her the most appropriate teacher. The complaint was resolved with the respondent agreeing to pay the complainant $8,000 general damages and provide her with a written apology. The respondent also agreed to undertake anti-discrimination training. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Apology - private Employment - other opportunity provided |
| Compensation | |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant advised that on his police record he has convictions for driving under the influence, the most recent being in 2005, as a well as a 1995 offence for possession of cannabis. The complainant sought to become a volunteer at the respondent aged care facility which was an approved organisation for the purposes of his pension job search requirements. The complainant said the aged care facility told him he could not be accepted as a volunteer because of his criminal record. The respondent facility advised that volunteers have unsupervised access to residents and undertake duties such as taking residents for walks, room visits and reading. The facility said the complainant was considered unsuitable because of the seriousness of the traffic offences on his police record. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant could reapply for volunteer work in the future. The respondent facility also provided the complainant with a verbal apology. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Apology - private Financial compensation Record changed |
| Compensation | $5,000 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant has a criminal conviction for larceny in 2002 for which she received a $59 fine. The complainant advised that she declared her criminal record when applying for fixed term casual work with the respondent transport company. The complainant was employed for the term of her contract without incident. The complainant claimed that some months later she became aware the company was offering similar work but she was not contacted. She said another employee told her she was not offered additional work because of her criminal record. The respondent company confirmed the complainant was not offered further work but denied this was because of her criminal record. The company said there was urgency to the recruitment process and so calls were made to people on a register of potential employees. The first people on the register who indicated they were available, were offered the work. The terms on which the complaint were resolved included: that the company would provide the complainant with a written apology and pay her $5,000 compensation. |
| Grounds | Criminal record (ILO111) |
| Areas | Employment/Occupation |
| Terms Of Settlement | Financial compensation Policy change/change in practice (internal staff) |
| Compensation | $3,000 |
| Complaint Summary | The complainant advised that on his police record he has two charges without conviction namely, a charge of criminal damage to property in 1999 for which he had to pay $1,000 court fees and a charge of theft of a clothing item in 2003 for which he had to pay $100 court fees. The complainant was offered a job as a consultant at the respondent bank, subject to a satisfactory police record check. He claimed that prior to commencing work, he advised his team leader he had charges which may or may not show up on his police record and explained what these were. The complainant said he worked for three weeks with the bank and performed well but when the bank received his police record check, his employment was terminated. The complainant claimed that his criminal record did not prevent him from fulfilling his work responsibilities. He also said that if the bank was of the view that he was unsuitable for the role, it should have raised this when he first advised of his police record. The bank said the position the complainant applied for involved access to customer accounts and therefore it was imperative that a person in this role be honest, trustworthy and of good character. The bank said that in light of the complainant's criminal record, it was not satisfied he could fulfill the inherent requirements of the role. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank would pay the complainant $3,000 compensation and review its policy regarding the appointment of prospective employees prior to receipt of a satisfactory police record check. |
