Conciliation Register

The complainant, who has paraplegia and uses a wheelchair, attended an event as part of a festival. She claimed a friend enquired about the accessibility of the venue and was informed it was accessible. The complainant claimed she was unable to access the venue independently, safely and with dignity for a number of reasons, including that there was a step leading to the lift, the lift was a goods lift that could not be operated independently, there was a step on the way to the accessible toilet and the accessible toilet could not be locked. 

Festival organisers confirmed the performance space was not wheelchair accessible and said the complainant’s friend had been informed of this, in accordance with information on the festival’s website. Festival organisers said attempts were made to provide access because the complainant’s friend was very keen to explore ways the complainant could attend.

The complaint was resolved. Festival organisers apologised to the complainant for her experience and for any miscommunication that led her to believe the venue was wheelchair accessible. Festival organisers advised a three-year Disability Action Plan was under development. The Disability Action Plan would include a review of access across the festival’s digital and print platforms, more stringent access requirements for festival venues, the creation of an access advisory group involving people with a lived experience of disability, a review of access for its performers, and annual disability awareness training for core staff.

The complainant has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome and is extremely sensitive to commercial weed spray. She claimed the respondent local council proposed to spray commercial weed spray along the border of her rural property and declined her requests to create a spray exclusion zone and/or to postpone the spraying to enable her to make temporary arrangements for alternative accommodation. 

The council advised the spraying was required by the rural fire service and was already several years overdue, including due to requests by the complainant for postponement of spraying. The council advised the spraying would be conducted using a targeted drip method rather than a wide-range mist hose. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the council postpone the spraying for 5 weeks to enable the complainant to arrange alternative short-term accommodation.

The complainant has paralysis in her right side and uses an electric wheelchair. She stayed at the respondent caravan park and alleged the accessible bathroom was not accessible to her because it had a steep, makeshift entry ramp and no horizontal grab rails in the shower. She also claimed that she was required to hold a key for the accessible bathroom by paying a refundable bond when she checked in. 

The caravan park claimed that its accessible bathroom was upgraded less than three years earlier and complied with the Australian Building Code. It claimed that the key bond policy was reasonable in the circumstances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the caravan park install a permanent low-gradient ramp leading to the accessible bathroom and install horizontal grab rails in the shower.

The complainant was pregnant and worked at the respondent training provider. She alleged the company initiated a formal performance management process because she was late to work on some occasions due to severe morning sickness. 

The complainant’s supervisor and the company denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,000 as general damages, waive debts due to accidental over payment and provide her with a statement of service. The company also agreed to review policies and training with respect to equal employment opportunity, incorporating feedback from the complainant. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant has autism spectrum disorder and Tourette's Syndrome and was studying speech pathology at the respondent university. She claimed the university advised her it could not find her a placement unless she could overcome her cough/tic. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to transfer to a different university.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $7,500 and arrange a meeting with her to discuss the complainant's concerns about treatment of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Tourette Syndrome.

The complainant has bipolar disorder and has been employed as a case worker with the respondent government agency for over ten years. She said she informed the agency of her disability when she started working for the agency. The complainant advised that on one occasion, a client engaged in challenging behaviour and she responded inappropriately by swearing at the client. She said she discussed the incident with her manager and completed an incident report. The complainant claimed that, a couple of months later, the agency directed her to access sick leave pending clearance from her doctor to perform her duties.

The government agency claimed a number of performance issues arose and were discussed with the complainant following the incident referred to in the complaint. The agency said that, in response to the complaint, the agency re-credited the complainant’s sick leave and placed her on paid special leave from the time she was directed to obtain medical clearance until her return to work.

The complaint was resolved and the complainant remained employed with the government agency. In addition to steps already taken by the agency in response to the complaint, a reasonable adjustment plan was developed in consultation with the complainant, her union, line management and human resources.

The complainant has spinal muscular atrophy and uses a wheelchair. He alleged a number of theatres at the respondent cinema were not accessible to him due to stairs.

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the cinema to:

•    Ensure session information on its website included information about accessibility of the theatre in which the session was showing

•    Where possible, show a range of films in the accessible theatres

•    Update its staff training manual to include information about how to best assist patrons with disability

•    Consider the installation of domestic chair lifts. 

The complainant worked as a sales assistant in a liquor store owned by the respondent supermarket. He advised he took time off work to undergo treatment for cancer and injured his finger while on leave. The complainant claimed he became depressed after his manager disclosed his disability to staff and customers. He advised he was cleared to return to work on modified duties after several months of leave, but the supermarket terminated his employment.

The supermarket claimed the complainant’s employment was terminated because he was deemed unfit to perform the inherent requirements of his role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the supermarket pay the complainant $17,500 as general damages and to provide him with a statement of service. The supermarket also wrote to the complainant expressing its regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant is blind. She claimed she was unable to access receipts and instructions for products purchased from the respondent retailer because the information was provided in print.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer:

•    Provide all invoices to the complainant in Braille

•    Add wording to its online store and all customer emails inviting customers to contact the retailer if they require information in alternative formats

•    Train staff to ask customers at the time of purchase whether they require information in alternative formats

•    Offer the complainant $250 in store credit.

The complainant alleged the respondent insurer charged her family an additional 50% for travel insurance because her eight-year-old son has Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer re-issue the complainant’s travel insurance policy without the additional premium. The insurer also undertook to review its assessment processes to remove additional premiums for certain pre-existing medical conditions such as ADHD.

The complainant was a member of the respondent travel club and has a mobility disability. He claimed he was unable to ascertain whether hotels and other accommodation offered by the club were accessible when booking online. He advised that, even when he contacted the club by phone, he was sometimes provided with incorrect information about accessibility of accommodation.

The travel club advised the website was operated by a third party and the club did not have control over its content. The club offered to reimburse the complainant for rooms he was unable to use and to provide him with a contact point for assistance with future bookings.

The complaint was resolved. The club undertook to establish an accessibility team to assist members with access requirements with their bookings. The club said it would promote the existence of the accessibility team through its website and by a member bulletin. The club also offered the complainant credits to be put towards future bookings over the following two years.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and has been issued with a disability parking permit by the relevant authority. She alleged the respondent parking station issued her with a contravention notice after she remained parked in an accessible parking bay longer than the allocated time. She claimed the parking station should allow persons who have disability parking permits longer parking periods than those without such permits but was told the parking station charged all those using its service the same rates.  

The parking station operator noted that many people with disability used the parking station to facilitate access to nearby medical services. It claimed placing two-hour limits on parking was reasonable to maximise access to the parking station.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the parking station convert two of its two-hour accessible parking bays to four-hour accessible parking bays. The parking station also agreed to improve signage about the location of payment points, promote its online payment system, show the complainant how to use the online payment system and forward feedback from the complainant to the provider of its payment machines.