HREOC - Annual Report 2001 - 2002: Chapter 2: Complaint Handling Section

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Annual Report 2001-2002

• Back to contents

Chapter 2: Complaint Handling Section

Introduction

The Complaint Handling Section had a productive year investigating and conciliating complaints of alleged discrimination and human rights breaches; providing information to the public about federal anti-discrimination and human rights law through its Complaint Information Service and community education and liaison program; and providing complaint investigation and resolution skills training to state equal opportunity, anti-discrimination authorities, other Australian Public Service agencies and private companies.

In summary:

• 1271 complaints were received.
• 1298 complaints were finalised.
• 30 percent of finalised complaints were conciliated.
• 88 percent of complaints were finalised within 12 months of lodgement.
• 8 052 telephone, email, TTY and in person enquiries were received through the Complaint Information Service.
• 759 written enquiries were responded to.
• Approximately 155 organisations throughout all states and territories attended information sessions on the complaint handling process.
• Seven specialist investigation and/or conciliation skill training courses were conducted for Complaint Handling Section staff, staff from State and Territory Equal Opportunity Commissions, government and non-government agencies.
• Ten skills training courses in statutory investigation were conducted for the Australian Public Service through the Australian Public Service Commission.

The Commission is responsible for the investigation and conciliation of complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 , the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

This legislation provides for complaints of discrimination or breaches of human rights to be made to the Commission. Complaints are referred to the President, who is responsible for inquiring into the complaint. After inquiry, the President must decide whether to terminate the complaint or attempt to settle the complaint through conciliation.

Complainants who allege unlawful race, sex or disability discrimination and whose complaint is terminated by the President because it cannot be resolved by conciliation or for another statutory reason, may apply to have their complaint heard by the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Service. Complaints lodged under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 concerning discrimination in employment or a breach of human rights by the Commonwealth, which cannot be conciliated may, after Notice, be made the subject of a report to the Attorney-General for presentation to Parliament.

A diagram of the complaint handling process is provided at Appendix 4 of this Report.

In the 2001-02 reporting year, complaints were received from all states and territories. Complaints were lodged by complainants from capital cities, large regional centres and rural and remote Australia. Most complaints were made directly to the Commission through its office in Sydney and the Commission's online complaint form. A number of complaints were also referred from state anti-discrimination and equal opportunity agencies.

Along with its formal statutory complaint handling function, the Complaint Handling Section receives a large number of enquiries from people seeking advice and assistance in relation to possible breaches of federal anti-discrimination legislation. These enquiries may be made by telephone, in person, in writing or by email. Many enquirers are utilising the electronic enquiry facility made available by the Commission. Enquirers are provided with information about the legislation and the complaint handling process. When appropriate, enquirers are encouraged to resolve matters directly and informally with the people involved in their dispute. When it appears that a formal complaint should be made, enquirers are sent a Complaint Guide and complaint form or directed to the online complaint facility and website.

When the Commission cannot assist, every effort is made to refer the caller to another appropriate avenue of redress. The Commonwealth and State Industrial Relations Commissions and Ombudmans' offices are common referral points. When complaints of discrimination are not covered by federal law, callers are referred to the relevant state authorities.

Key performance indicators and goals

• Timeliness. The Complaint Handling Section's stated performance measure is for 75 percent of complaints to be finalised within 12 months of date of receipt. In 2001-02 88 percent of matters were finalised within 12 months and the average time from receipt to finalisation of a complaint was seven months. A detailed breakdown of timeliness statistics by jurisdiction is provided in Table 13.

• Conciliation rate. The Complaint Handling Section's stated performance measure is for 30 percent of finalised complaints to be conciliated. In 2001-02 this goal was achieved with a 30 percent conciliation rate.

• Customer Satisfaction Survey . The Complaint Handling Section's stated performance measure is for 80 percent of parties to be satisfied with the complaint handling process. Data for 2001-02 indicates that 83 percent of parties were satisfied with the service they received. Of this 83 percent, 47 percent rated the service they received as 'very good' or 'excellent'. Further details of survey results for this reporting year are provided below.

Customer satisfaction survey

The Complaint Handling Section's customer satisfaction survey has been in operation since December 1997. The survey is used to obtain feedback from complainants and respondents (or their advocates) involved in the complaint handling process. Survey results for 2001-02 indicate that:

• Seventy seven (77) percent of complainants and 92 percent of respondents felt that staff explained things in a way that was easy for them to understand.
• Eighty three (83) percent of complainants and 99 percent of respondents felt that forms and correspondence from the Commission were easy to understand.
• Sixty one (61) percent of complainants and 72 percent of respondents felt that the Commission dealt with the complaint in a timely manner.
• Eighty eight (88) percent of complainants and 94 percent of respondents described complaint handling staff as unbiased.

Survey results for 2001-02 are generally similar to survey results for the past two years.

Service charter

The Complaint Handling Section's service charter provides a clear and accountable commitment to service. It also provides an avenue through which users can understand the nature and standard of service they can expect and contribute to service improvement. All complainants are provided with a copy of the charter and respondents receive a copy when they are notified of a complaint against them.

During 2001-02 the Commission did not receive any complaints about its services through the charter's formal complaint mechanism. It is noted that where parties have concerns about the complaint handling process, they are generally able to resolve their concerns through discussions with the officer handling the complaint.

Access to services

The Commission's mission statement seeks to promote and facilitate community access to its services and functions. In meeting this challenge the Complaint Handling Section provides the following services:

• The Complaints Infoline - 1300 656 419 . The Infoline, operating at a local call charge, is open Monday to Friday between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm. This service offers enquirers the opportunity to call and discuss allegations of discrimination with a Complaint Information Officer. Seven thousand, five hundred and forty six (7 546) enquirers throughout Australia utilised the Complaints Infoline during 2001-02. Enquirers can also email complaintsinfo@humanrights.gov.au . Three hundred and seventy nine (379) email enquiries were received this year. Further information about the operation of the Complaints Information Service is provided later in this section.

• Complaints Information webpage - www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints_information/. This webpage provides the general public and potential users of the service with information about the Commission's complaint handling role and the complaint process. It includes information on how to lodge a complaint, a complaint form, frequently asked questions about complaints and a conciliation register. The conciliation register contains de-identified information about the outcomes of conciliated complaints.

• Online Complaint Form. This service, which allows complaints to be lodged electronically, has been well utilised over the past year.

• Concise Complaint Guide. This can be accessed and downloaded in 14 community languages.

• Conciliation circuits. When required, Investigation Conciliation Officers travel throughout Australia to conduct face to face conciliation conferences. Along with the conferences conducted in the greater Sydney area, officers conducted around 60 conferences in Victoria, 35 in South Australia, 24 in Queensland, 24 in regional New South Wales, 14 in Western Australia, seven in the Australian Capital Territory and six in the Northern Territory.

• Access working group. The Complaint Handling Section established its access working group in 1999. The aim of the group is to improve the accessibility of the complaint handling service. Tasks undertaken by the working group in the past year included development of an information brochure for Indigenous clients and the design and presentation of an information session for people with an intellectual disability.

• Community education and state liaison. The Complaint Handling Section provides information sessions concerning the Commission's complaint information and investigation and conciliation services to community and stakeholder organisations throughout Australia. Presentations to staff and representatives from approximately 155 organisations and groups were made in 2001-02. Presentations took the form of informal and formal staff meetings and group presentations. The organisations visited included community legal centres, ethnic community centres, disability and Aboriginal legal services. The regions covered included Brewarrina and Broken Hill (New South Wales); Charleville and Roma (Queensland); Albany and Carnarvon (Western Australia); Port Lincoln and Port Augusta (South Australia); Darwin (Northern Territory); Mildura and Melbourne (Victoria); and Launceston and Hobart (Tasmania).

Arrangements with state agencies

Victoria

The Commission has a formal referral arrangement with the Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria whereby Victorians who elect to lodge a complaint under federal legislation may lodge a complaint through the Referral Centre. Once the complainant has elected federal jurisdiction the complaint is referred to Sydney for handling. Sixty six (66) complaints were referred from the Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria in 2001-02. Victorians can also lodge their complaint directly with the Commission through the Sydney office by post or online. A total of 237 complaints were received from Victoria this year.

Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory

The Commission has arrangements with the Queensland, South Australian and Northern Territory Equal Opportunity Commissions whereby these agencies display Commission publications and allow Complaint Handling Section staff to use their facilities for conciliation conferences, community education or training. Informal referral arrangements are also in place whereby these agencies will forward complaints under federal law to the Commission. Alternatively, complainants can choose to lodge complaints under federal jurisdiction directly with the Commission in Sydney, by post or online.

Tasmania, Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory

Residents of these states and territory have a choice of electing to lodge complaints under state anti-discrimination law or lodging complaints under federal law directly with the Commission in Sydney, by post or online.

Election of jurisdiction

As many complainants may choose between federal and state laws to lodge their complaint, the Commission has produced an information sheet about this process. It is available on the Commission's website at: www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints_information/jurisdiction/jurisdiction.html

Training and policy

The Commission has two specialised training programs which provide knowledge and skills in statutory investigation and conciliation. All complaint handling staff are required to undertake these courses. In 2001-02 two statutory investigation and two statutory conciliation courses were run for Commission staff and staff from anti-discrimination agencies in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Variations of these courses were also run for staff of another Commonwealth agency and managers of a large national company. Feedback on these courses has been very positive with 76 percent of participants rating the course as 'excellent' and 24 percent rating the course as 'very good' . [1]

The Commission has also worked in partnership with the Australian Public Service Commission to provide a two day investigation training course for Australian Public Service staff around Australia. The course, which is a variation of the Commission's standard statutory investigation training program, provides theory and skills that can be applied to the investigation of internal complaints and breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. This course has been extremely popular and in the past year senior complaint handling staff have delivered two courses in Sydney, two in Melbourne, one in Adelaide, one in Brisbane and in-house courses were run for Centrelink, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Health Insurance Commission. Feedback from these courses has also been very positive with 93 percent of participants indicating that their learning needs were met to a 'high degree' or 'largely met' and 98 percent rating course presentation as 'excellent' or 'very good' . [2]

During 2001-02 three complaint handling officers continued study towards obtaining Certificate IV accreditation in Assessment and Workplace Training. Four senior officers have already obtained this certification. Staff of the Complaint Handling Section also attended various seminars and training courses relating to human rights and anti-discrimination law throughout the year including the Annual National Community Legal Conference in Fremantle, the Second Diversity Conference in Geelong and the National Conference on Racism in Sydney.

In 2001-02 the Complaint Handling Section also undertook a research project which, in part, examined the impact of the Human Rights Legislative Amendment Act 1999 on the Commission's complaint handling work. The research project considered the impact of legislative change on the number of complaints received, the level of legal representation of parties, complaint outcomes and complaint settlement amounts. The research project also sought to gather information in relation to the Commission's conciliation process and reasons for withdrawal of complaints. In particular, the project considered parties' satisfaction with conciliated outcomes, reasons for settlement and what, if any, concerns parties' had about a court determination process. Details of the findings of this project will be available by the end of the year on the Commission's website.

Other work

In the early part of the reporting year, the Complaint Handling Section provided a practicum placement for a trainee mediator undertaking the Relationship Australia Course in Mediation.

In December 2001, a senior officer from the Complaint Handling Section travelled to Indonesia to continue work on a capacity building project with the Indonesian National Commission of Human Rights (Komnas Ham). This project is assisting Komnas Ham to develop and implement a computerised complaints management system. The Commission had previously worked with an IT consultant to complete a business process analysis of the complaint process and information requirements. This visit furthered the project by providing technical assistance to staff in reviewing and finalising specifications and planning the implementation of the system.

In December 2001 an officer from the Complaint Handling Section assisted the Fiji Human Rights Commission, through the Asia Pacific Forum, to conduct two workshops on human rights education.

In April 2002, two senior officers from the Complaint Handling Section travelled to Beijing to assist in negotiations with Chinese agencies regarding activity development as part of the China-Australia Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program. This program is funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and is implemented by the Commission. Further information on the Commission's work on this program is provided at Chapter 9 of this Report.

Staff from the Complaint Handling Section also participated in providing information about the Commission's complaint handling work to delegations from human rights institutions, parliamentary and government institutions and non-government organisations from Vietnam, Thailand, China, Korea, Ireland and Indonesia and to Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Personal Envoy and Asia Pacific Regional Advisor of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Conciliation case studies

Racial Discrimination Act

Under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 it is unlawful to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. The Act also prohibits offensive behaviour based on racial hatred.

During 2001-02, the Commission received 186 complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act. The majority of these complaints related to employment and the provision of goods and services. The Complaint Handling Section finalised 258 complaints under this Act and 15 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act are provided in the statistics part of this Chapter.

Complaint of race and disability discrimination in access to premises

The complainant, who is Aboriginal and has cerebral palsy, alleged that she was treated less favourably on the basis of her race and her disability when trying to enter a hospital to see her sick child. The complainant alleged that the security guard at the hospital initially swore at her and refused her entry because he thought she had been drinking. The complainant claimed that she tried to explain that she was there to visit her baby and the driver of the bus she had travelled in also spoke to the guard and advised him that the complainant had a disability which affects her speech and gait. The complainant claimed that the guard persisted in questioning her as to whether she had been drinking and why she was returning to the hospital late in the evening. The complainant advised that she was eventually allowed to enter the hospital and that she lodged a complaint with a hospital official the day after the incident.

The hospital advised that they had a contractual agreement with the respondent security firm which stipulated that security guards were required to question unidentified persons found on the premises after 8pm. The security firm advised that the guard involved in the matter had left their employment, but from their records it appeared that the guard thought that the complainant had been drinking and questioned the complainant about this when she sought to enter the hospital. The records indicated that the guard agreed that he spoke with the bus driver but denied that he swore at the complainant. The guard claimed that he offered to escort the complainant to the ward but his offer was declined.

The matter was resolved by conciliation. The security firm agreed to pay the complainant $3 000 which included $2 000 in general damages and $1 000 legal costs. The firm also agreed to provide the complainant with a written apology and to introduce a comprehensive anti-discrimination policy. The hospital agreed to pay the complainant $3 000 which comprised $2 000 for general damages and $1 000 legal costs.

Alleged discrimination on the ground of race in the provision of goods and services

The complainant advised that his wife is of Russian background and does not read, write or speak English. The complainant alleged that he was vilified because of wife's racial background when he contacted the respondent state government department to enquire, on his wife's behalf, about obtaining a particular qualification. The complainant alleged that a female officer answered his call and when he advised the officer that his wife was Russian, the officer said "Oh! A mail order bride eh!" The complainant also alleged that the department discriminated against his wife in that study guides for the qualification are not published in Russian.

The department advised that due to budgetary constraints study guides are not published in various languages and the department was of the view that non-provision of the material in Russian did not constitute discrimination on the ground of race. The department concurred that during a telephone conversation, a part-time Client Relations Consultant had made the alleged statement to the complainant in response to the complainant advising the consultant that he had a "Russian bride".

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the department agreeing to pay the complainant $1 000 compensation for hurt and humiliation and the Client Relations Consultant agreeing to provide a written apology to the complainant.

Complaint of race discrimination in provision of banking services

The complainant is of Iranian background, does not read, write or speak English and was recently released from detention after being granted refugee status. The complainant claimed that he went with a friend to the local bank to open a savings account. The complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race in that the bank refused to open an account under his name because he does not speak, read or write English and would not allow his friend, who speaks English, to assist him. The complainant stated that the next day, he went to another branch of the same bank and was able to open an account without any problems.

The bank advised that it initially did not open an account for the complainant because it was not satisfied that the complainant was able to understand the terms and conditions pertaining to his responsibilities as an account holder. The bank stated that the complainant was able to open an account at a different branch as an employee at that branch spoke the same language as the complainant. The bank denied race discrimination but agreed that the complainant's inability to communicate in English was a factor in the initial refusal to allow him to open an account.

The matter was resolved by conciliation with the respondent providing a verbal apology to the complainant and agreeing to issue a national bulletin to advise all staff to use the Telephone Interpreter Service to assist customers who have difficulties communicating in English.

Alleged race discrimination by hotel

An Aboriginal elder lodged a complaint on behalf of himself and another Aboriginal person, alleging discrimination on the ground of race by the respondent hotel. The complainant claimed that he and the other complainant had performed at a dance function, showered and then sought to enter the hotel to purchase some cigarettes. The complainant claimed that they were refused service and asked to leave the premises because staff of the hotel said they smelt.

The hotel denied race discrimination and claimed that the complainants were refused entry because of their strong body odour and because they did not meet the hotel's hygiene standards. The hotel stated that the complainants were informed that they were welcome to return after they had showered.

The complaint was resolved at conciliation with the respondent agreeing to pay each complainant $6 000 in general damages and also provide each complainant with a letter of apology.

Alleged race discrimination by bus driver

The complainant, who is an Aboriginal, alleged she was discriminated against by the driver of a public bus. The complainant claimed that when checking the validity of passenger's tickets, the bus driver made racist remarks to Aboriginal passengers by referring to them as "the coloured man in the hat", "you blacks" and "black fellas". The complainant alleged that when she and other passengers objected to this language the driver said "if I had my way, I'd line you all up outside". The complainant advised that she made a complaint directly to the bus service when she returned home.

The respondent company advised that it had conducted an investigation of the complainant's allegations and while the bus driver admitted using the term "coloured" he denied using the terms "blacks" or "black fellas". The company also advised that the driver admitted saying words to the effect "if I had my way everyone would be lined up outside" but claimed this was said in the context of enabling a ticket check because he knew that one passenger did not have the correct ticket. The company also advised that the driver had been dismissed.

The complaint was resolved at conciliation with the company agreeing to develop and implement anti-discrimination policies for inclusion in the driver induction process. The company also agreed to engage a relevant agency to provide an initial series of anti-discrimination forums for all drivers, with follow-up forums to be held annually.

Alleged racial vilification in local council meeting

The complainant, who is a councillor of a local council, claims that at a council meeting the respondent became insulting and argumentative towards him and racially vilified him by making remarks such as "Jews don't understand", "Jews are the same", "Jews don't know better" and "f…king Jews". The complainant claimed that he asked council staff to remove the respondent from the council chamber and that upon being approached by the staff members, the respondent repeatedly referred to the complaint as a "f….ing Jew".

The respondent agreed that he may have made offensive comments against the complainant but he denied making any anti-semitic remarks. The respondent claimed that in his view the complainant has not adequately performed his councillor role as he is only interested in representing Jewish members of the community.

Following several rounds of conciliation discussions by telephone, the parties agreed to resolve the complaint on the basis that the respondent acknowledged that the comments he made hurt and embarrassed the complainant and unreservedly withdrew the comments. Each party also undertook not to disparage or make untrue or defamatory comments about each other to any third party.

Complaint of racial discrimination in employment

The complainant was employed by a large federal government organisation for five years. The complainant claimed that during his employment, he was treated less favourably because he is from Israel, is of the Jewish faith and had work related health problems. The complainant alleged that since 1996, he was subjected to repeated anti-semitic comments, intimidation, isolation, threats of demotion and shift restrictions due to work related health problems. The complainant alleged that the comments he was subjected to included being greeted by a staff member who said "Sieg Heil" and performed a "Nazi" salute, being asked "Why don't you go back to Israel?" and told "I'll send you back to Israel". The complainant claimed that his supervisors, harassment officers, a staff doctor and a union representative all subjected him to less favourable treatment while working at a particular work centre and that management failed to act upon his complaints.

Although the respondent denied the allegations the matter was resolved by conciliation with the respondent organisation agreeing to pay the complainant $9 000 in general damages.

Sex Discrimination Act

Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of their sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy in many areas of public life including employment, education, provision of goods services and facilities, accommodation, clubs and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is also unlawful to dismiss a person from their employment on the ground of their family responsibilities. Further, sexual harassment is unlawful in a variety of areas of public life including employment, educational institutions, the provision of goods, services and facilities, registered organisations, the provision of accommodation, clubs and in dealings concerning land.

During 2001-02, the Commission received 399 complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act. The large majority of complaints related to employment and around one third of the complaints alleged pregnancy discrimination. The Commission finalised 376 complaints under this Act and 43 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act are provided in the statistics part of this Chapter.

Alleged pregnancy discrimination

The complainant stated that she was not aware that she was pregnant when she applied for work as a receptionist/clerk with a real estate agency. She claimed that soon after she commenced work she advised her supervisor that she was pregnant and that her supervisor suggested that she have an abortion. The complainant alleged that when she advised her supervisor that she had decided to proceed with her pregnancy her employment was terminated.

The respondent company denied that it had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her pregnancy. The company claimed that the complainant's employment was terminated because she would have required a period of maternity leave long before any normal holiday entitlements would have accrued and at a time when other staff would have also been on leave. The respondent advised that an additional reason was that the complainant intended to move to a remote location and commute to the city office which was seen to be an untenable situation.

The complaint was resolved at conciliation with the respondent company agreeing to pay the complainant $4 000 in general damages and to reinstate her to her former employment.

Complaint of sex and pregnancy discrimination in casual employment

The complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and pregnancy when seeking to be engaged by a federal government department for one day of casual work. The complainant claimed that when she outlined to the department her needs in relation to breastfeeding or expressing milk, she was told that she was only allowed half an hour break during the day and that she could not bring her baby to the workplace. The complainant also claimed that she was told it would be inappropriate to express her milk while working with the department. The complainant stated that she was pressured into withdrawing from the work.

The respondent department denied that the complainant was discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy. The department claimed that it did attempt to accommodate the complainant's needs and it was the complainant's decision not to work for the department. The department also denied that any statements were made that would constitute discrimination.

The matter was resolved by conciliation with the department agreeing to change its policies to accommodate women breastfeeding in the workplace, provide associated training for staff, provide the complainant with a statement of regret and pay the complainant $1 200 in general damages.

Alleged refusal to accommodate pregnancy in employment

The complainant was employed as a full-time administrative assistant with the respondent importing and wholesale company. The complainant claimed that in February 2001 she informed her employer that she was pregnant and in March 2001 provided her employer with a medical certificate recommending that she work light duties. The complainant alleged that the company did not provide her with light duties and required her to continue with duties which included lifting and carrying. The complainant claimed that when she was six months pregnant, she raised the possibility of reducing her employment to four hours per week but the company claimed that it was too small for such an arrangement. The complainant stated that in June 2001 she wrote to her employer confirming the discussions about part-time work and advising that she intended to take 12 months maternity leave from 1 September 2001. The complainant stated that her employer viewed this letter as notice of resignation from her full-time employment. The complainant alleged that the respondent's actions constituted constructive dismissal on the basis of her pregnancy.

The company stated that the complainant's regular duties did not normally require anything other than light duties and other staff were able to help her when required. The respondent claimed that prior to taking maternity leave the complainant handed in a letter advising that she would be commencing part-time employment. The company stated that it told the complainant that it did not have a permanent part-time position available and that she would be expected to return to the full-time position after her maternity leave. The respondent denied that it refused to allow the complainant to work part-time during her pregnancy but agreed that it did refuse to employ her on a part-time basis after her return from maternity leave. The respondent denied the complainant was constructively dismissed.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the respondent company agreeing to pay the complainant $9 000 in general damages.

Alleged sex and pregnancy discrimination in employment

The complainant was an employee of a financial institution. The complainant claimed that when she was due to return to work from her second period of maternity leave she put in a request for part-time work. The complainant claimed that the respondent refused her request on the basis that the company did not have a part-time work policy. The complainant alleged that the respondent would have been able to accommodate her request for part-time work as her duties had been narrowed since her return from her first period of maternity leave and part-time work positions had been offered in the past. The complainant stated that she resigned from her position due to the unavailability of part-time work.

The respondent denied pregnancy and sex discrimination. The respondent stated that they do not have a part-time work policy and as the complainant's position was a specialist position, it could not be restructured into part-time work. The respondent stated that the complainant's full-time job was available to her on her return and denied that her duties had narrowed after she returned from her first period of maternity leave. The respondent claimed that there had been temporary job share arrangements in the past which had now concluded.

The matter was resolved at conciliation with the respondent agreeing to formulate and distribute a part-time work policy and to pay the complainant $12 000 in general damages.

Complaint of sex and pregnancy discrimination

The complainant claimed that she had been employed by a food manufacturing company for nearly 10 years before taking 12 months maternity leave. The complainant said that she had written to the company two months before the completion of her maternity leave advising of a return to work date. She claimed that one month later she was informed that her position was no longer required and was given a job description for an alternative position. She stated that as this position was not comparable to her former position in terms of duties, responsibilities, salary and status, she did not accept this position.

The respondent company denied that the complainant was discriminated against on the basis of her sex or pregnancy. The company claimed that during the complainant's maternity leave a decision was made that the complainant's position was no longer required in its existing form and the General Manager had met with the complainant prior to her return to discuss this. The company claimed that the complainant was advised that the General Manager proposed to develop an alternative role for her to return to which was equivalent in status and salary to her prior position and also advised of an alternative position she could apply for. The company claimed that it did not consider offering the complainant a redundancy package because comparable alternative employment was available.

The complaint was resolved on the basis that the complainant was paid her long service leave entitlements, two weeks annual leave, damages for pain and suffering ($8 070) and provided with a certificate of service and verbal reference.

Complaint of sexual harassment by contract worker

The complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed in the course of her employment with a communications company by a contractor who was engaged by the company. The complainant alleged that at a function after work and at a nightclub following the function, the contractor grabbed her, made suggestions about having a sexual relationship with her and made other comments of a sexual nature. The complainant alleged that the company was vicariously liable for the actions of the contractor because it did not take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring.

The contractor agreed that he had behaved in an inappropriate manner at the social function, however, he said that he had been very drunk and could not recall most of his actions. In his response, the contractor apologised for his behaviour. The company also agreed that the acts would have taken place in the manner described by the complainant, but stated that it did not think it was vicariously liable as the acts took place outside of work. The company indicated however that it wished to resolve the complaint as the complainant was a good employee and was badly affected by the events.

The matter was resolved by conciliation with both respondents apologising to the complainant during the conciliation conference and agreeing to pay the complainant a total sum of $15 000 general damages. The company also agreed to implement a sexual harassment and discrimination policy and to provide associated training for staff. The individual respondent also agreed to attend anti-discrimination and sexual harassment training.

Allegations of sexual harassment in employment

The complainant stated that she was seconded to work at a specific site by the respondent company. This site involved working with five other employees in a closed room which had security access via only one door. The complainant alleged that while working at this site she was subjected to sexual harassment involving remarks of a sexual nature and the display of pornographic materials. Her specific allegations included that a male co-worker approached her from behind put his arms around her and said to the other workers in the room "I just have to touch her" and that another male co-worker displayed a moving picture of a woman wearing a short dress that did not cover her genitalia on his personal computer. The complainant also alleged that male workers watched pornographic materials on a computer screen and within her hearing, made comments about the person in the picture.

The respondent company advised that an internal investigation indicated that several of the complainant's allegations had been substantiated and that the individual respondents had been disciplined and an apology had been offered to the complainant.

At conciliation the matter was resolved on the basis of a $10 000 ex-gratia payment to the complainant and reinstatement of sick leave that the complainant had taken as a result of the incidents.

Alleged sexual harassment by manager in employment

The complainant was employed as a clerk with the respondent mining company for nine months and during this time, was located at an isolated work site. The complainant alleged that during her employment she was sexually harassed by her manager. Specifically, the complainant claimed that the manager asked her try on her uniform when he issued it to her, invited her to watch TV on his bed, made persistent attempts to start a personal relationship with her, and often made comments to her of a sexual nature. The complainant also alleged that the manager hit her on the bottom twice and told her that he would leave his wife for her. The complainant also claimed that when she separated from her husband and started a relationship with a work colleague, the manager persecuted her by doubling her workload and over criticising her work. The complainant advised that she resigned from her employment.

The respondent company utilised a consultant to undertake an independent investigation of the matter. The company advised that while the investigation found that some of the incidents alleged by the complainant had happened, it appeared that the complainant had taken them out of context. The individual respondent did not provide a response to the allegations.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the respondent company agreeing to pay the complainant $23 000 in general damages and provide her with a written reference.

Disability Discrimination Act

Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of their disability in many areas of public life including employment, education, provision of goods services and facilities, access to premises, accommodation, clubs and incorporated associations, dealing with land, sport and in the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It is also unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground they are an associate of a person with a disability and it is unlawful to harass a person because of their disability.

During 2001-02, the Commission received 452 complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act . More than half of the complaints related to alleged discrimination in employment. The Commission finalised 443 complaints under this Act and 37 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act are provided in the statistics part of this Chapter.

Alleged disability discrimination in employment

The complainant has multiple sclerosis. This condition affects the complainant's gait, dexterity and energy levels. The complainant worked for the respondent company as a salesperson for over 10 years. The complainant did not initially inform the respondent of his disability, but did so in 1998 when the physical effects of his disability became more apparent. The complainant alleged that once he informed the company of his disability, the company indicated that he should resign or his employment would be terminated. The complainant alleged that his work became overly supervised and monitored, that increased criticism of his work performance was not based on fact, that the company failed to accommodate his disability and required him to undergo repeated driving, clinical and medical tests to assess his performance. The complainant claimed that while his ability to drive was restricted, he was still achieving his sales quota and had adapted his marketing process to accommodate his disability without affecting his ability to do his duties.

The respondent argued that after 1998, the complainant's disability deteriorated to the extent where it adversely affected his work performance and his ability to perform inherent duties such as driving. The respondent also argued that the complainant's disability raised genuine health and safety concerns in the work environment.

The matter was resolved by conciliation with the complainant agreeing to resign from his employment and the respondent agreeing to pay the complainant a $52 000 compensation package comprising general damages, future economic loss and a share package.

Alleged disability discrimination in appointment to employment

The complainant is employed in the Commonwealth public service. In early 2001, the complainant developed acute synovitis of both arms and consequently underwent a successful rehabilitation program. In late 2001, the complainant was informed that her application for a position with the respondent department was successful, but appointment to the position was contingent on a successful medical assessment.

The medical assessment declared that the complainant was not medically capable of performing the required duties on a full-time basis (seven hours per day). At the time of the medical assessment, the complainant was in the final stages of her rehabilitation program and working six hours per day. The respondent declined to appoint the complainant to the position on the basis of the medical assessment. Two weeks after the medical assessment, the complainant returned to full-time hours.

The complaint was successfully resolved at conciliation with the respondent agreeing to provide the complainant with an apology, to seal the medical assessment report and pay the complainant compensation of $6 160.

Complaint of discrimination in employment

The complainant was employed as a senior supervisor with the small respondent company. She stated that when she commenced employment she had no indication that she had a disability but after a month she began to experience pins and needles and numbness in her hands and feet and was admitted to hospital for tests which led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. She advised the respondent after the diagnosis that medical advice indicated that she had a very mild form of multiple sclerosis and that she required three weeks to recover. The complainant stated that prior to her hospitalisation she had performed all required duties and she was confident that she could return to full-time work and perform her duties. Prior to returning to work the complainant received a letter which advised that her employment was to be terminated because of her disability.

In response to the President's inquiries, the company claimed that the complainant's work performance had been a concern during the period she was employed. The company stated that the decision to terminate her employment was based on its belief that her condition is a notably unpredictable condition and there were serious doubts that she would be able to perform the inherent requirements of the job over time.

At the conciliation conference the complainant provided medical evidence to demonstrate that she had been completely well since her employment was terminated. The complaint was resolved with the respondent company agreeing to pay the complainant $6 500 compensation which comprised general damages and lost wages.

Wheelchair access to sports venue

The complainant and three other people who have physical disabilities and use wheelchairs for mobility purposes, alleged that the respondent company had discriminated against them in the terms and conditions on which it provides access to its sports venues. The complainant and his friends stated that they had attended events at tennis and aquatic venues owned by the respondent company and on each occasion their view of the events was obscured and their enjoyment of the event affected. They claimed that the top railing of the fence is positioned directly in the sight line of those using the wheelchair assigned spaces.

The matter was resolved with the respondent company agreeing to raise the railing heights at both venues within three months and refund each complainant the price of their tickets.

Access to local shopping centre

A representative complaint was lodged on behalf of two groups of people who are blind or use wheelchairs for mobility. The complainants allege that the respondent treated them less favourably on the basis of their disabilities in the provision of access to premises and services at the local shopping centre. The complainants identified inadequacies with the entrance, the entrance ramp, the lane leading to the entrance ramp, the car park, the lift, signage, stairs and toilets.

The respondent investigated the issues and a settlement was negotiated by correspondence whereby the respondent agreed to improve entrances and signage, install a new lift, modify the existing lift, improve the car park and lighting, improve access to stairs, install Tactile Ground Surface Indicators and relocate and improve toilets. The complainants and respondent agreed to maintain contact until the required work was completed.

Alleged discrimination in provision of goods, services and facilities - captioning

The complainant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged she stayed in three different hotels and none of these hotels provided captioning facilities on television or video facilities.

The complaint was resolved through conciliation with the hotel chain agreeing to immediately install three teletext televisions in each hotel and to implement a policy whereby when television and video equipment need to be replaced due to age or breakdown, they will be replaced with captioning enabled equipment. The hotel also agreed to undertake advertising to ensure potential guests and current guests are aware of the service.

Complaint of disability discrimination by educational institution

The complainant has a vision impairment and attends the respondent tertiary educational institution. The complainant required course materials to be in an accessible electronic format and while the respondent institution did have materials available in electronic format, they were not able to be accessed by the complainant's screen reader. Consequently, the complainant did not have access to the course materials at the beginning of the course.

The respondent acknowledged that it had not considered the issue of accessibility as fully as it could have. The complainant also acknowledged the technical constraints involved in making diverse sources of course material fully accessible.

The matter was resolved at conciliation with the respondent institution agreeing to make a number of improvements to its services for students with disabilities. This included the development of a Disability Action Plan to be finalised and lodged with the Commission by March 2002, the implementation of a Web Disability Action Plan, the purchase and testing of improved text conversion software and expanding the role of its Disability Liaison Officer. The educational institution also personally apologised to the complainant.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act

Complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 are not subject to the same process as complaints under the Racial, Sex and Disability Discrimination Acts.

Under this Act, the President can inquire into and attempt to conciliate complaints that concern alleged breaches of human rights by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth. Human rights are defined in the Act as rights and freedoms contained in any relevant international instrument which is scheduled to, or declared under, the Act. They are the:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• Declaration on the Rights of the Child

• Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons

• Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons

• Convention on the Rights of the Child

• Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

Under the Act, the President can also inquire into and endeavour to conciliate complaints of discrimination in employment on specific grounds. These grounds include age, religion, sexual preference, trade union activity and criminal record.

If a complaint of alleged discrimination or alleged breach of a human right is neither conciliated nor declined, the President can, after providing Notice and considering final submissions, find that the subject matter of the complaint constitutes discrimination in employment or is a breach of a human right. The President must report her findings to the Attorney-General for tabling in Parliament. The Commission's Legal Section assists the President in the Notice part of the process. Further details of this process are provided in the Legal Services section at Chapter 3 of this Report.

During 2001-02, the Commission received 234 complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. The majority of these complaints related to alleged breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in immigration detention and discrimination in employment based on either age or criminal record. The Commission finalised 221 complaints under this Act and 11 percent of these finalised complaints were conciliated and five percent referred for reporting. Detailed statistics regarding complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act are provided in the statistics part of this Chapter.

Alleged discrimination in employment on the ground of criminal record

The complainant was offered a job with a state government department as a tow truck driver. The complainant stated that he had worked as a tow truck driver for a number of years on a part-time basis and that he gave up his full-time position as a bus driver to take up this job offer. The complainant alleged that two days before commencing work, the job offer was revoked as a result of a criminal record check which found that in October 2000 the complainant had been convicted of behaving in an offensive manner in a public place. The complainant advised that he made numerous representations to the respondent explaining that the circumstances of the offence were extenuating. He provided medical documentation stating he was suffering from stress and anxiety at the time due to a recent death in the family and supplied information attesting to his excellent record of dealing with the public as a bus driver and tow truck driver. The complainant also argued that despite having this conviction, he is still able to renew his tow truck operator license on an annual basis and that his current employer was aware of the past offence.

The respondent department advised that it was of the view that the recency and nature of the offence was relevant to the specific requirements and duties of the position. In particular, the department claimed that the duties require close liaison and interaction with the public, police, ambulance officers, fire and other emergency personnel, stranded motorists and other commuters. The respondent considered that it would have been negligent to employ the complainant in the circumstances.

A conciliation conference was held and the matter was resolved with the respondent agreeing to notify the complainant of vacancies in same or similar positions over the next 18 months so that he may reapply. The respondent also agreed to give the complainant's application consideration once two years had passed since the date of the conviction.

Complaint of discrimination on the ground of criminal record

The complainant claimed that he had applied for a job with the respondent state government authority as a deckhand. He was later advised that his application was unsuccessful because he had a criminal record for possession of marijuana in May 1998.

Prior to the President formally writing to the respondent, the matter was resolved with the respondent reversing its decision and advising the complainant that he would be considered for the next available position.

Allegations of age discrimination in employment

The complainant was employed as a teacher in a private school. She stated that the school principal told her that she had "reached her use by date" and harassed her for the next 15 months because he regarded her as too old for the job. The complainant was 50 years of age at the time. The complainant also alleged that because of her age she was not promoted or given access to training. The complainant resigned because of this alleged treatment.

After the complaint was lodged with the Commission, the complainant advised that with the assistance of her union, she had resolved the complaint directly with the school on confidential terms.

Complaint of age discrimination in application for employment

The complainant, who was 18 years of age, stated that he applied for a position delivering and collecting surveys for a Commonwealth government department. The complainant alleged that despite his relevant experience for the position, his application was unsuccessful, and he claimed that the interviewer told him that people his age lacked the necessary maturity to complete the job.

The department denied age discrimination and stated that the complainant was not offered the position because at interview he lacked 'poise and confidence' and was 'shy and diffident'. The department stated that the complainant was not as strong a candidate as the other applicants. The interviewer did not recall making the alleged discriminatory comment and noted that he had received training in appropriate selection procedures, including workplace diversity and equal employment opportunity.

The complaint was resolved at conciliation with the department agreeing to provide the complainant with a statement of regret and pay the complainant $1 250 general damages.

Allegations of age and sex discrimination in promotional opportunity

The complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age and sex in her employment as an investigator with a Commonwealth government agency. She stated that there were only two female investigators within her area. She alleged that her manager said that she reminded him of his previous secretary because she was also old. She stated that she applied for a promotion and her manager attended the interview and asked a question about her age and whether she could do the job. She stated that male applicants for the position who were in their fifties were not asked this question. She claimed that her application for promotion was not successful because of her age. She further alleged that the agency did not address her internal complaint about these issues in a timely or satisfactory matter and that she was victimised for making the internal complaint.

The respondent agency advised that it had conducted an internal investigation into the complainant's allegations. The investigation found that the first allegation about the comment was substantiated but the other allegations concerning the selection process and victimisation were either unsubstantiated or incapable of being determined.

A conciliation conference was held and the matter was resolved with the agency agreeing to pay the complainant $6 500 and provide harassment and anti-discrimination training for all staff in the area.

Complaint of discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual preference

The complainant alleged that during his employment as a nurse with the respondent company he was harassed and discriminated against on the basis of his sexual preference. In particular, he claimed that a colleague wrote him a letter expressing her disapproval of his homosexuality, that the following written comment was added to a meeting agenda "can we have more male nurses under 25 who look like Brad Pitt and are not gay", and that chocolates given to him by a patient were covered with KY jelly. The complainant stated that the company did not appropriately address his concerns and didn't follow company procedure in dealing with his complaint. The complainant resigned from his position.

The respondent company claimed that its internal investigation determined that in relation to the letter there had been no intent to harass the complainant and this matter had been resolved between the parties. The company claimed that with regard to the written comment about the employment of male staff, the complainant had actually laughed about this when it was brought to his attention. The company also claimed that in relation to the issue of the chocolates, the company was unable to determine what had actually happened due to varying versions of events. The respondent claimed that it took measures to address the complainant's concerns in a caring, understanding manner but the complainant ultimately resigned despite being urged not to and being offered counselling and alternative employment options.

The matter was resolved at conciliation with the respondent agreeing to pay the complainant the sum of $5 000 which composed $2 200 for loss of earnings and $2 800 in general damages.

Allegation of discrimination in employment on the ground of trade union activity

The complainant stated that he is a union delegate in his workplace, a federal government department, and was involved in antagonistic negotiations with management over the agency's certified agreement. The complainant alleged that since that time he was treated less favourably, in that his work was over scrutinised and that he had performance measures taken against him when he made a minor calculation error. He alleged that other staff had made similar errors but were not treated as he was. The complainant advised that he transferred from the agency to another government department because of the alleged discriminatory treatment.

The respondent department denied that the complainant had been discriminated against on the basis of his trade union activity. The department stated that the complainant was disciplined because his mistake was very grave and different to mistakes made by other staff.

The complaint was resolved by conciliation with the department agreeing to pay the complainant $5 000 in general damages and provide a 'without admission of liability' apology.

Complaint handling statistics

Preliminary comments

The following statistical data provides information on enquiries handled by the Commission during 2001-02, an overview of complaints received and finalised and specific details on complaints received and finalised under each of the Acts administered by the Commission.

It is important to note, when comparing complaint data between different agencies and reporting years, that there are often variations in the way the data is counted and collected. Some additional information explaining the Commission's approach to statistical reporting is footnoted. If further clarification is required contact the Commission's Complaint Handling Section.

Summary

Although there was little change in the overall number of complaints received and finalised in 2001-02 compared to the previous year, there were some notable changes in the grounds of complaints the Commission received.

During 2001-02, 36 percent of complaints were lodged under the Disability Discrimination Act, 31 percent under the Sex Discrimination Act, 18 percent under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act and 15 percent under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act increased by four percent compared to the previous year. The grounds of complaint appear to reflect issues raised by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner's policy work. For example, while complaints of alleged pregnancy discrimination made up 16 percent of complaints in 2000-01, they constituted 30 percent of complaints in 2001-02. It would appear that lodgement of pregnancy related complaints is linked to increased public awareness of these issues through the Commission's National Inquiry into Pregnancy and Work and the paid maternity leave debate.

There was a small increase in complaints lodged under Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act compared to the previous year. The main area of alleged human rights breaches concerned conditions and treatment in immigration detention. Although numbers of complaints received are relatively unchanged, it is clear that complaints peak following major incidents in detention centres and inspection visits by the Human Rights Commissioner.

A significant number of complaints are lodged under the Disability Discrimination Act each year. Allegations of discrimination in employment recruitment and retention continue to represent over half of the matters received. These complaints often involve concurrent workers' compensation claims and return to work programs and the ability and/or willingness for the employer to accommodate the disability without unjustifiable hardship.

Complaints lodged under the Racial Discrimination Act fell six percent in comparison with the previous year. The reason for this decrease is unclear particularly in light of public debate over the past year in relation to immigration, religion and other international events. It is unusual not to see an increase in complaints when there has been such public debate. It is possible that as the federal jurisdiction provides limited rights in relation to discrimination and vilification on the basis of religion, those who may be affected by such actions have utilised state anti-discrimination laws as most state laws give rise to enforceable rights for complaints based on religion.

Parties to complaints remain willing to embrace resolution of matters through the Commission's conciliation processes. Of all the complaints finalised during 2001-02, 30 percent were conciliated which is in keeping with the expected range. Of those matters where conciliation was attempted, a large majority (62 percent) were successfully resolved.

It is notable that the conciliation success rate varies across the different types of complaints. During 2001-02, complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act had the highest conciliation rate (43 percent) and a high conciliation success rate (64 percent of matters where conciliation was attempted were resolved). Complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act had a conciliation rate of 37 percent and also a high conciliation success rate (69 percent). Complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act had a conciliation rate of 15 percent and a success rate of 39 percent. Lower resolution rates for race discrimination matters appear to be linked with difficulties complainants often have in demonstrating a link between their race and the alleged less favourable treatment and the associated limited case precedent in this area.

While only a small number of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act complaints were resolved by conciliation (11 percent), 70 percent of matters where conciliation was attempted were resolved. The overall low conciliation rate in relation to these complaints is understandable in light of the fact that many human rights matters brought under this Act do not relate to acts or practices of the Commonwealth and are therefore declined. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act complaints that relate to alleged breaches of human rights by the Commonwealth generally have a low conciliation rate (three percent in 2001-02) as they often concern broad policy issues which are difficult to resolve at the individual complainant level. However, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act complaints regarding employment under the International Labour Organisations Convention (ILO 111) have a higher conciliation rate (17 percent in 2001-02).

Information on the geographical location, sex and ethnicity of complainants is provided in Tables 9, 11 and 12 below. Demographic data voluntarily provided by complainants at the commencement of the complaint process [3] provides additional information on complainants. This data, which is broadly similar to data obtained in 2000-01, indicates that many complainants (28 percent) knew about the Commission prior to lodging their complaint and the main source of referral was legal centres/private solicitors and family/friends. A large number of complainants (65 percent) indicated that their main source of income at the time of the alleged act was from full or part-time employment. Approximately 39 percent of complainants advised at the beginning of the complaint process that they were represented. [4] The main forms of representation were privately funded solicitors (26 percent) and representation by a friend, family member or support person (18 percent).

Data collected on respondent categories indicates that in 2001-02 approximately 52 percent of complaints were against private enterprise, 24 percent were against Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities and nine percent were against state departments and statutory authorities. The next main respondent categories were educational institutions (five percent), clubs and incorporated associations (four percent) and non-government organisations (two percent). Once again, this data is very similar to respondent category data for 2000-01.

Complaint Information Service

Table 1: Telephone, TTY, email and in person enquiries received

Table 2: Enquiries received by issue

Table 3: Enquiries received by state of origin

Table 4: Written enquiries received and finalised

Table 5: Written enquiries received by issue

*One written enquiry may have multiple issues Table 6: Written enquiries received by state of origin of enquirer

Complaints overview

Table 7: National complaints received and finalised over the past two years

Table 8: Outcomes of national complaints finalised over the past two years

Table 9: State of origin of complainant at time of lodgement

Table 10: Complaints received and finalised by Act

Chart 1: Complaints received by Act

Table 11: Complaints received by category of complainant by Act

Table 12: Complaints received by ethnicity of complainant by Act

Table 13: Time from receipt to finalisation for complaints finalised during 2001-02

Racial Discrimination Act

Table 14: Racial Discrimination Act* - complaints received and finalised

*Includes complaints lodged under the racial hatred provisions.

Table 15: Racial Discrimination Act - complaints received by ground

100

*One complaint may have multiple grounds.

Table 16: Racial Discrimination Act - complaints received by area

100

*An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.

Table 17: Racial Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

*Not an aggrieved party, state complaint previously lodged.

Chart 2: Racial Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

Table 18: Racial hatred complaints received and finalised

Table 19: Racial hatred complaints received by sub area

100

*This category includes complaints in the area of education, provision of goods and services, comments made by people in the street and in passing vehicles. **One sub area is recorded for each racial hatred complaint received.

Table 20: Outcomes of finalised racial hatred complaints

*Not an aggrieved party, state complaint previously lodged.

Chart 3: Outcomes of finalised racial hatred complaints

Sex Discrimination Act

Table 21: Sex Discrimination Act - complaints received and finalised

Table 22: Sex Discrimination Act - complaints received by ground

100

*One complaint may have multiple grounds

Table 23: Sex Discrimination Act - complaints received by area

100

*An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.

Table 24: Sex Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

*Not an aggrieved party, state complaint previously lodged.

Chart 4: Outcomes of finalised racial hatred complaints

Disability Discrimination Act

Table 25: Disability Discrimination Act - complaints received and finalised

Table 26: Disability Discrimination Act - nature of complainant's disability

*One complainant may have multiple disabilities.

Table 27: Disability Discrimination Act - complaints received by ground

100

*One complaint may have multiple grounds.

Table 28: Disability Discrimination Act - complaints received by area

100

* An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.

Table 29: Disability Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

*Not an aggrieved party, state complaint previously lodged.

Chart 5: Disability Discrimination Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act

Table 30: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - complaints received and finalised

Table 31: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - complaints received by ground

*One complaint may have multiple grounds.

Table 32: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - complaints received by area

*An area is recorded for each ground, so one complaint may have multiple and different areas.

Table 33: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - non-employment complaints received by sub area

*One complaint may have multiple sub areas.

Table 34: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

*Complaints in this category were not conciliable and therefore transferred from the Commission's Complaint Handling Section to Legal Services for Notice and possible report. **Not an aggrieved party, state complaint previously lodged.

Chart 6: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act - outcomes of finalised complaints

1. Calculated on the basis of completed course evaluations where comparable evaluation formats were used - five of the seven courses.

2. Calculated on the basis of completed course evaluations where comparable evaluation formats were used - seven of the 10 courses.

3. Sixty eight (68) percent of complainants returned the Intake Form in 2001 02.

4. Representation status may change during the complaint process.