Conciliation Register

The complainant said her son, who is 17 years of age and of Indian origin, had been employed by the respondent leisure centre. The complainant claimed that because of her son’s age and race, his employer did not provide him with adequate medical treatment following a work-related injury.

The leisure centre denied discriminating against the complainant’s son and claimed the same medical treatment is offered to any injured employee.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the leisure centre write to the complainant’s son acknowledging his hurt and distress.

The complainant is of Chinese ethnic origin and claimed the respondent supermarket cancelled his online order for infant formula because of his ethnic origin. He advised his wife is Caucasian and claimed her order for infant formula was not cancelled.

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

The complaint was resolved. The supermarket wrote to the complainant providing an explanation for the incident and apologising for any distress he experienced. The supermarket offered the complainant a $30 voucher and advised it would revise its policies and procedures with respect to online and in-store purchases of infant formula.

The complainants are Aboriginal and live in public housing. They claimed a neighbour attempted to remove them by starting a petition around the neighbourhood and sending the petition to the government body responsible for the property. They also claimed that the neighbour made racially derogatory comments including calling them ‘black c**ts’.

The neighbour denied starting a petition. He claimed another neighbour wrote a letter to the relevant department on behalf of house owners in the neighbourhood raising concerns about the department not adhering to its project regarding sale of properties in the neighbourhood. The neighbour denied making the alleged comments, but said there was an altercation between him and one of the complainants when he tried to raise concerns about the complainants’ grandchild throwing rocks and eggs at the neighbours' windows.

The complaint was resolved. The complainants’ neighbour apologised for any upset or distress experienced as a result of the altercation. The parties expressed a mutual desire to improve their relationship and agreed to attend the complainants’ local church together to get to know each other better. One of the complainants agreed to speak with his grandchildren about appropriate behaviour around the neighbourhood.

The complainant is Aboriginal and was employed as a flight attendant with the respondent airline. She claimed that during a flight, colleagues made racially derogatory remarks in their conversation, including ‘looking so black... looking like a nigger and boong’ within earshot of the complainant and other crew members. The complainant claimed the airline did not respond appropriately to her internal complaint about the issue.

On being advised of the complaint the airline indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline pay the complainant $5,000 and write to her acknowledging the distress and upset she experienced as a result of the events complained of. The airline also agreed to take on board input from the complainant with respect to future discrimination and cultural awareness training. The complainant’s colleague agreed to pay the complainant $1,500 and to meet with the complainant and the colleagues aware of the incident to acknowledge that her comments were inappropriate and offensive. The complainant remained employed with the airline.

The complainant was employed with the respondent government department. She claimed that colleagues made racist comments about Indian people when they were aware she was married to an Indian man and their manner towards her changed markedly when they became aware that she later married an Aboriginal man. She also claimed the department victimised her after she made complaints about racism in the workplace.

On being advised of the complaint the department indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department consider the complainant’s input in the process of developing a diversity and inclusion policy and guidelines.

The complainant is Indian and claimed a guard on public transport was rude and dismissive towards him in response to a timetable enquiry. He claimed the same guard was pleasant towards customers who were not Indian.

The transport company said the guard had no recollection of the interaction referred to and there was no information to suggest the alleged treatment was based on the complainant’s race. The company said the guard had undertaken training on anti-discrimination and had been spoken to about the incident.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the transport company write to the complainant apologising for his experience and pay him $300 as a goodwill gesture.

The complainant is from New Zealand and holds a Special Category Visa (SCV). He claimed the respondent home loan provider declined his application for a home loan because of his status as a temporary resident.

The home loan provider advised applicants must be Australian citizens or permanent residents to be eligible for its home loans. Then the home loan provider said applications from 'protected' SCV holders (New Zealand citizens who arrived in Australia before 2001) would be considered, but the complainant did not fit this category. The home loan provider claimed this requirement was imposed because such applicants posed less of a credit risk.

The complainant was resolved with an agreement that the home loan provider change its lending policy to deem New Zealand citizens holding an SCV, irrespective of their date of arrival in Australia, eligible to apply for a home loan and to provide information about this policy change on its website. The home loan provider also agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the events giving rise to his complaint.

The complainant is African-American and worked on a casual basis as a sales associate with the respondent retailer. He alleged that a manager made offensive comments to him in the workplace because of his race. He claimed the retailer reduced his shifts after he complained about this treatment and eventually forced him to resign.

The retailer said the manager denied making any offensive comments and there was no record of any internal complaint about the alleged conduct. The retailer claimed the complainant was counselled about poor performance and chose to resign.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer  pay the complainant $3,500 as an eligible termination payment.