Conciliation Register

The complainant has paraplegia and uses a wheelchair. She attended a concert at the respondent entertainment venue which had been advertised as a “seated” concert. The complainant said the wheelchair accessible seating area was located behind other audience seating areas and this meant her view of the stage was blocked when spectators stood and danced throughout the performance.

On being advised of the complaint, the venue refunded the complainant $150 for the cost of her ticket and expressed regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The venue undertook to explore operational responses to the issues raised by the complainant.

The complaint was resolved. The entertainment venue undertook to communicate more effectively with patrons with disability with respect to accessibility of events and possible obstructions to the view of the stage. The venue also undertook to provide consistent messaging to patrons prior to performances, including at ticket purchase and entry, that selected seating is restricted to seated participation during the performance and to clearly identify seated participation only seating as appropriate. The venue also said it would hold discussions with artists about considering accessibility issues in their interactions with patrons and staging of performances. 

The complainant has severe multiple chemical sensitivities and booked an appointment with the respondent specialist. She asked that, in order to accommodate her disability, part of the consultation take place by telephone, the specialist not wear synthetic fragrances and that the consultation take place within 48 hours of the office being cleaned. She claimed the specialist’s rooms told her that they were not able to accommodate her requests and her appointment would be cancelled.

The specialist explained that she shared rooms with other specialists where chemicals were widely used and there was little ventilation. The specialist said she had been concerned that the complainant would be unintentionally exposed to chemicals that may trigger a reaction. The specialist confirmed the appointment had been cancelled and apologised for not explaining the reasons more clearly at the time.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the specialist see the complainant at her rooms during a quiet time to minimise potential exposure to chemicals and on the understanding that the respondent would not be able to offer oxygen or resuscitation equipment in the event of a severe allergic reaction.

The complainant is blind. She claimed she was unable to enter a competition run by the respondent television broadcaster because a code word required to enter the competition was displayed on the screen.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the broadcaster ensure  audible and visual announcements are used to advise viewers of code words required to enter future competitions.

 

The complainant’s two sons have allergies to nuts, eggs and dairy products. She said her sons would not be able to eat a number of dishes on a set menu at a wedding she was attending at the respondent venue. She said the venue declined her request to bring food her sons would be able to consume safely and she and her sons would therefore be unable to attend the wedding.

The venue explained that the complainant’s request was refused because preparation of food for the wedding needed to comply with certain faith-based requirements, which meant certain foods could not be taken into the kitchen.

The complaint was resolved a few days before the wedding. Following more detailed advice about the faith-based requirements for the preparation of food for the wedding, the venue allowed the complainant to bring her own food on the condition that the food be cold and the complainant provide her own utensils.

 

The complainant is deaf and claimed advertisements by the respondent government business enterprise were not captioned.

The government business enterprise claimed its television advertisements were captioned and undertook to raise the issue with the broadcaster. The enterprise confirmed online advertisements were not captioned and it was taking steps to address the issue.

The complaint was resolved when the government business enterprise confirmed it had instructed its creative agency to include closed captions for TV advertisements and had activated closed captions for its online advertisement. The enterprise apologised to the complainant for any inconvenience caused and advised that it was undertaking an audit of its procedures in this area.

The complainant has bipolar disorder and claimed that the respondent insurer declined her application for death and total permanent disablement (TPD) cover because of information she provided about her mental health history..

The insurer claimed its decision to decline the complainant’s application for TPD insurance was not unlawful because it was based on actuarial and statistical data on which it was reasonable to rely.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the insurer pay the complainant $10,000 ex gratia.

The complainant was employed as a fulltime property associate with the respondent real estate agency. She advised she had a mild stroke and was unfit to work for three weeks and unfit to drive for four weeks. The complainant claimed that when she contacted the company to discuss her return to work, the company offered her casual employment and subsequently terminated her employment.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $3,000. The company apologised to the complainant and advised it implemented policies and training on workplace discrimination and harassment in response to her complaint.

The complainant has depression, anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She said her treating doctor recommended she acquire an assistance dog to help her manage her disability. She claimed the respondent owners corporation declined her request to keep an assistance animal in her apartment.

The owners corporation indicated that, while it had a “no pets” policy, it was willing to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be permitted to keep an assistance dog in her apartment on the basis that she ensure the dog is vaccinated, does not interfere with other residents’ enjoyment of their property and does not defecate in common areas. The complainant agreed to take steps to ensure the dog is trained to alleviate the effects of her disability and to meet hygiene and behaviour standards appropriate for a dog in a public space.

The complainant has congenital bilateral dysplasia of the hips, shortening of the right leg, osteoarthritis, high blood pressure and a back condition due to muscle atrophy. He advised the respondent government agency transferred him to a different location following a finding that he had breached its code of conduct. He claimed the new office location required additional travel, resulting in an aggravation of his medical conditions. He claimed the agency refused his request to return to his original workplace despite being provided with medical evidence to support the request.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant return to his original workplace and the agency pay the complainant approximately $3,750 as compensation for pain and suffering and approximately $7,250 in compensation for legal costs. The agency also agreed to re-credit 20 days of personal leave the complainant said he accessed due to the exacerbation of his medical conditions.

The complainant worked as a general hand with the respondent catering company on a casual basis. She had previously acquired a psychological injury in the course of her work. The complainant said the company lost the tender to provide catering at her worksite. She claimed the company placed all employees at the worksite except her in a casual pool for potential future offers of work. She claimed the company told her she would not be added to the casual pool because of her psychological injury.

The company claimed discussions of opportunities for casual work were ongoing. The company claimed it assumed the complainant had found other work because she stopped contacting the company.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company  conduct remedial training on equal employment opportunity, anti-discrimination and cultural inclusion for human resources staff.

 

The complainant has an assistance animal trained to alleviate the effects of his anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He claimed a security guard denied him access to the respondent hotel, where he was attending a friend’s farewell celebration, because of his assistance animal despite being provided with evidence of the animal's accreditation.

The hotel confirmed the security guard asked the complainant to wait outside while he checked with hotel management whether he was allowed to enter with his assistance animal. The hotel denied not allowing the complainant to enter its premises with his assistance animal. The hotel claimed when the security guard advised the complainant he could enter the hotel, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with what had occurred and chose to leave.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel write to the complainant apologising for the incident and undertaking to ensure the same thing does not happen to him or anyone accompanied by an assistance animal in the future. The hotel undertook to develop an information sheet on its obligations with respect to persons with disability accompanied by an assistance animal in consultation with a disability peak body and to distribute the information sheet to hotel and security personnel at a number of venues owned by the hotel operator. The hotel also undertook to display “Assistance Animals Welcome” signs in prominent places at all venues operated by the hotel operator. Finally, the hotel agreed to pay the complainant $1,500 in compensation for legal costs and donate $2,000 in money and meal vouchers to an agreed assistance animal training organisation. 

 

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and experiences panic attacks. He advised the respondent government agency generally contacts customers by telephone. He said he requested that the agency contact him in writing to accommodate his disability but this did not occur.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency assign a designated officer to the complainant who would communicate with him primarily in writing.

 

The complainant is blind and unable to access printed material. She claimed she found monthly bills from the respondent health monitoring service inaccessible because they were provided to her in print. She claimed her requests for the bills to be provided electronically or in Braille were declined.

The health monitoring service said there was no record of a request by the complainant for bills to be provided in an accessible format. The service provided a sample bill in an electronic format for the complainant to review.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant confirmed she was able to access the sample bill and the health monitoring service agreed to provide her with future bills in this format.

 

The complainant is blind and purchased a household appliance from the respondent manufacturer which can be operated via a mobile app. The complainant claimed the app was not accessible to his screen-reading program and he was therefore unable to use the appliance independently.

The manufacturer advised that a new app would be launched later in the same year that would provide increased accessibility to users of assistive technology. The manufacturer invited the complainant to participate in testing of the app to ensure compatibility with screen-reading technology.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the manufacturer pay the complainant $2,000, equivalent to 50% of the cost of his household appliance. The complainant indicated he would use this payment to purchase other products from the manufacturer.

 

The complainant uses an assistance dog to alleviate the effects of a psychosocial disability. She claimed the respondent restaurant did not allow her to access the restaurant with her dog even though she informed staff the dog was an assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant place an “Assistance Animals Welcome Here” sticker at the front counter, provide staff with information about assistance animals developed by the Commission and donate $50 to an assistance dog training organisation.