Conciliation Register

The complainant has anxiety and delivers driver training, which requires him to be registered with the respondent government department. He advised he was required to undertake training with the same department in order to maintain his registration, as registration requirements changed. He said he was unable to satisfactorily perform certain assessment tasks, such as public speaking due to his anxiety and alleged the department declined to accommodate his disability. The complainant claimed he was therefore at risk of losing his registration and his business.

The department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department extend the complainant’s registration to enable him to complete the required training. The department agreed to provide the complainant with adjustments to accommodate his disability, including smaller participant groups, lower numbers of assessors and meetings with assessors prior to assessment tasks to discuss what the task would involve and what adjustments could be provided to accommodate the complainant’s disability.

The complainant has anxiety and has an assistance animal. She alleged she was refused entry to the respondent museum because she was accompanied by her assistance dog, despite her dog wearing a jacket identifying it as an assistance animal. She further alleged a staff member had yelled at her for bringing a dog into the museum and ‘chased’ her out of the museum. The complainant alleged the museum failed to respond to a complaint about the alleged conduct.

The museum claimed the complainant’s assistance dog’s jacket was not visible at the time of the alleged events and denied that a staff member yelled at her or ‘chased’ her from the museum. The museum acknowledged there was a delay in responding to the complainant’s complaint, explaining this was due to a change in management.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the museum pay the complainant $5,000 and place a sign at its entry stating assistance animals are welcome at the museum. The complainant agreed to withdraw a complaint about the same incident to a different body and to provide the museum with free resources it can use to train its staff on responding appropriately to patrons with assistance animals. 

The complainant has palindromic rheumatism, a form of inflammatory arthritis, and uses a walking stick. He worked as a concierge and security guard with the respondent security company. He claimed the company informed him he would need to be redeployed as the owners of the building where he worked no longer required the company’s services. He alleged that his manager indicated his use of a walking stick was not accessible and he would be required to complete a fitness for duty assessment with no adjustments or modifications. He alleged his manager told him he could undertake the assessment or resign.

The security company denied discriminating against the complainant. The company said it was exploring redeployment opportunities for the complainant and required him to undertake an assessment to determine his capacity to perform the role.

The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $3,500, equivalent to three weeks’ gross wages and entitlements.

The complainant worked part-time at the respondent health products company as a digital customer service Representative. She said that during her pregnancy she experienced pregnancy-related physical and mental health issues as well as work-related stress. She alleged that after becoming aware of her pregnancy, her supervisor was hostile towards her, started questioning her work ethic and contacting her on non-work days. She alleged that she was required to bring her toddler-aged son to a meeting on her non-work day. She also claimed that after taking sick leave, she was prevented from performing particular work that she enjoyed. The complainant resigned shortly after lodging a complaint with the Commission.

The company was of the view that the complainant’s supervisor's interaction with the complainant did not change after becoming aware of her pregnancy. The company said there was no expectation that the complainant respond to emails on her non-work days, said that any change in work arrangements was not due to her taking sick leave and said that the meeting with her son occurred with one week's notice when the complainant indicated availability. The company said it supported the complainant in her work and took a generous and accommodating approach towards the complainant's circumstances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $4,000, provide her with a written reference and deliver anti-discrimination training to staff.

The complainant is a leg amputee and uses a wheelchair. He alleged there were no wheelchair accessible toilet facilities at the respondent hotel, where he was drinking with friends.

On being notified of the complaint, the hotel indicated a willingness to participate in the Commission's conciliation process to attempt resolution of the matter.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel display a mobility map on the premises, which would include the location of accessible toilet facilities near the hotel. The hotel undertook to liaise with a nearby business regarding the use of its accessible toilet facilities by hotel patrons requiring such facilities. The hotel also agreed to train its staff regarding the use of accessible toilet facilities by patrons with disability and the location of nearby accessible toilet facilities

The complainant worked in a maintenance role for the respondent utilities corporation. He developed a mild hearing impairment which required the use of hearing aids and was placed on light duties. The complainant claimed the company required him to undergo a number of driving tests and medical assessments following concerns raised by colleagues. He claimed that, based on the results, the company imputed a cognitive disability to him and questioned his ability to perform the role, despite his neurologist declaring him fit for duties.

The company claimed that driving tests and medical assessments indicated the complainant was unable to safely operate heavy vehicles due to his disability. The company said the ability to operate heavy vehicles was an inherent requirement of the complainant’s role. The company noted the complainant subsequently lost his licence to drive heavy vehicles.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The company agreed to pay the complainant $30,000 ex-gratia and $2,000 in lieu of notice and in outstanding benefits. The company also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service.

The complainant has epilepsy and was a graduate nurse with the respondent public health service. She said she had a seizure before commencing employment. She said the health service’s occupational physician declared her fit for duties so long as she was not placed on night-shift or back-to-back shifts. The complainant claimed the health service told her that the restrictions could not be accommodated in her proposed rotations and therefore allocated her to one ward for her entire graduate year. She also alleged the health service told her she was unemployable because of her restrictions.

The health service argued that the role of graduate nurse did not entitle any nurse to any specific rotation. The health service claimed nurses working in the units where the complainant wished to work were required to work night-shifts and back-to-back shifts. The health service said that, in order to accommodate the complainant’s disability, it allocated her to the day-surgery, where she learned all the skills required of graduate nurses.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the health service write to the complainant expressing regret for the manner in which changes to her provisional graduate nurse placement were communicated to her. The health service agreed to explore secondment opportunities for the complainant that would accommodate her restrictions, amend the process for notification of changes to the provisional graduate nurse positions and deliver disability discrimination training for all nurse unit managers and other nursing staff involved in recruitment.

The complainant is a leg amputee and uses a wheelchair. He claimed toilet facilities operated by the respondent local council were inaccessible.

The local council advised it had taken a number of steps to increase the accessibility of facilities under its purview. The local council advised it had made available on its website information about accessibility in the local government area, including the location of accessible toilet facilities. The council confirmed the toilet facilities in question were not wheelchair accessible and claimed modifications were made more difficult because the facilities were on a public thoroughfare. The council noted accessible toilet facilities were available nearby. In response to the complaint, the local council listed the upgrade/replacement of the toilet facilities in question for consideration as part of the capital budget the following year. Should the funding be approved, accessible toilet facilities would be provided at the location in question.

The complaint was resolved. In addition to actions already taken, the local council agreed to explore the possibility of providing signage on the door of the toilet facilities in question advising the location of nearby accessible toilet facilities and/or referring people requiring such facilities to online information about their location.

The complainants’ son is blind and was enrolled in Year 12. The complainants claimed that the respondent state government education standards and assessment authority declined to allow their son the use of a person to assist him tactually interpret diagrams for his final maths exam. They claimed that their son had been provided this adjustment in previous exams. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the authority would prepare transcripts for diagram descriptions for the maths exam and would permit a reader to read those transcripts to the complainant during the exam.

The complainant took time off work as a nurse at the respondent medical practice to undertake treatment for cancer. She alleged that, during her absence, the medical practice hired a nurse to perform her role, changed her working days and reduced her working hours without consulting her. 

The medical practice claimed that, as a casual employee, the complainant had no entitlement to ongoing employment or to sick leave and therefore, the medical practice had no obligation to keep the job open for the complainant. The medical practice noted that the complainant’s return date was uncertain due to the nature of her medical treatment and that members of the practice required nurse support while she was absent. The medical practice expressed regret for the anger the complainant felt about the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant was no longer employed with the medical practice at the time of conciliation. The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the medical practice pay the complainant $10,000 as an eligible termination payment and provide her with a statement of service.

The complainant is blind and resides in government public housing. She claimed she had made an arrangement with her case worker to ensure correspondence would be sent to her in an email or as an accessible attachment to an email. The complainant claimed the arrangement ceased when a new case worker took over management of her tenancy and she was therefore no longer able to read correspondence.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the local client services team would provide the complainant with all correspondence in an accessible format and create a system alert notifying any future case worker of her requirements.

The complainant has anxiety and has an assistance animal. She alleged the driver of a bus operated by the respondent public transport provider did not allow her to enter the bus with her assistance dog, despite her showing him a card from the training organisation and the dog wearing a cape identifying it as an assistance animal.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the transport provider pay the complainant $2,000 and write to her apologising for the incident. The transport provider undertook to deliver training to staff regarding passengers with assistance animals, including the right of passengers to travel with their assistance animals and the documents that can be provided to identify an animal as an assistance animal. The transport provider agreed to place posters at staff depots regarding passengers with assistance animals and to advise staff that passengers with animals trained by the organisation that trained the complainant’s assistance dogs would be allowed to travel with their assistance animal.

The complainant’s five-year-old son has autism spectrum disorder, anaphylaxis, sensory processing difficulties and ADD. The complainant alleged the respondent public primary school failed to appropriately support her son’s transition into the school or to provide him with reasonable adjustments while at the school. The complainant removed her son from the school shortly after lodging the complaint.

The government department responsible for operation of the school denied the allegations, but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department pay the complainant $15,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

 

The complainant injured his wrist in the course of his work as a surgeon at the respondent public hospital and lodged a workers compensation claim. He alleged the hospital treated him less favourably because of his disability, including by dealing inappropriately with his workers compensation claim, unfavourable comments by staff, terminating his employment and denial of opportunities for locum work. 

The hospital claimed the complainant resigned from his employment. The hospital said the complainant was required to perform ‘light duties’ due to his injury and no locum work was available for such duties.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hospital pay the complainant $28,000 as general damages and write to him expressing regret for the circumstances surrounding his resignation.

The complainant is 64 years of age and applied for the role of flying instructor with the respondent aviation company. He advised he was not offered an interview and claimed the successful applicants were both aged in their thirties, were less experienced than himself and had been trained by him. He also said the company informed him it had believed he held a restricted pilot’s licence. He alleged his application was unsuccessful because of his age and because the company believed him to have a disability.

The company claimed the selection process was merit-based and the two successful applicants out-performed the complainant on their ability to contribute to projects and tasks across the company. 

The company's human resources director wrote to the complainant acknowledging that he found the recruitment process 'hurtful and disappointing' and that the company could have done better in drafting more precise and targeted selection criteria for the role. In the letter, the company also acknowledged that the complainant may have been able to elaborate on his own ability to contribute to projects and tasks across the company if interviewed and apologised for any distress that he experienced. The complainant considered that the company’s apology resolved his complaint.