Conciliation Register

The complainant was employed as an office manager by the respondent plant equipment supplier.  She alleged a manager sexually harassed her, including by regularly telling her she looked beautiful, propositioning her for sex, trying to kiss her, pressing up against her and inappropriately touching her. She claimed the company did not respond appropriately to her complaint about the manager’s conduct, accused her of making the complaint for financial gain and subsequently terminated her employment. 

The complainant’s former manager claimed that any conduct of a sexual nature was instigated by the complainant. The company claimed the complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated and that her employment was terminated for reasons unrelated to the complaint. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide the complainant with a statement of service and pay her $29,000. 

The complainant worked as a sales assistant and then as a store manager with the respondent furniture company. She alleged that two male directors and a male colleague sexually harassed her over several years, including by drawing sexually explicit cartoons and showing them to her, telling her she needed a ‘boob job’, making comments of a sexual nature, telling sexually explicit stories and showing other colleagues sexually explicit videos.  The complainant claimed other directors took no action in response to her concerns about this conduct and so she felt she had no option but to resign.

The respondents claimed the complainant was a willing participant in any conduct of a sexual nature that did take place and that she engaged in like conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondents would jointly pay the complainant $30,000 and that the company will develop a discrimination and harassment policy which will include discussion of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Each individual respondent also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the incidents giving rise to the complaint and to undertake training delivered by an external provider on discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment and sex discrimination.

The complainant was employed as a chef at the respondent restaurant. She alleged that her acting supervisor sexually harassed her by touching her on the back and shoulders, asking her on dates, telling her ‘you need to build some ass’  and telling her that she looked like a MILF when she wore dark lipstick. The complainant alleged that, after she told management about the conduct and her intention to lodge a complaint with this Commission, she was told not to attend her next shift, management raised concerns about her performance and she was told ‘I would resign if I were you’. She felt she had no option but to resign from her employment. 

The complainant’s former supervisor claimed he and the complainant had recently ended a consensual sexual relationship. He claimed that if he touched her in the kitchen, it was only to move past her. While he confirmed that he made some of the alleged comments, he denied others. The restaurant claimed it counselled the complainant’s former supervisor in response to her internal complaint and removed his higher duties. The restaurant claimed it held genuine concerns about the complainant’s performance prior to her internal complaint. The restaurant said these included that the complainant was producing poor quality food, was not wearing a hair net in the kitchen and wore nail polish to work. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant approximately $1,100, equivalent to three weeks’ pay. The restaurant also agreed to hold an all-staff meeting to be attended by the complainant and her former supervisor. The complainant’s former supervisor agreed to say the following at the all-staff meeting: ‘I understand there was a complaint from [the complainant] about workplace issues involving me. I confirm that we were able to resolve the complaint through conciliation. I regret that [the complainant] left the restaurant in the way she did and I wish her all the best for future endeavours.’ The complainant agreed to discontinue complaints she had made in other jurisdictions.  

The complainant had been a volunteer with the respondent community organisation. She alleged that when she expressed interest in applying for an advertised paid position, a manager told her the organisation was looking for a male because physical strength was required. The complainant was appointed to the paid position and alleged the same manager sexually harassed her, including by kissing her on the cheek, telling her he was attracted to her, asking her to go with him on a date and asking to go to her home. She also alleged she was unsuccessful for other paid roles in the organisation because she rejected the manager’s advances. The complainant had left her employment before lodging her complaint with the Commission.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation write to the complainant acknowledging her distress and pay her $15,000. The organisation advised it had completed a disciplinary process with the manager, was in the process of reviewing relevant policies and procedures and would be delivering relevant training to staff.

The complainant was employed with the respondent government agency. She alleged that a much older member of senior management groomed her over a period of time in a manner that constituted sexual harassment, including by approaching her at work and work drinks, connecting with her on a social networking site and privately messaging her on that site to tell her she was amazing.  She said she became anxious because colleagues began commenting on the senior manager’s behaviour towards her. The complainant claimed she made a number of complaints about this conduct to management, but no action was taken. She said she worked from home in order to avoid the senior manager and eventually left her employment.

The agency advised the senior manager’s conduct was found to breach relevant policies and procedures governing the conduct of public servants. The agency advised the senior manager had resigned before a final decision was made as to whether his employment would be terminated. The agency said the senior manager’s behaviour was unacceptable and outlined the steps it had taken since receiving the complaint to ensure that the workplace was safe, including implementing structural change by ensuring gender equality in senior management and developing a diversity and inclusion plan.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $40,000 as general damages. The agency and the senior manager also agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant alleged the respondent charitable organisation withdrew an offer of employment after she disclosed her pregnancy. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant $5,000. The organisation acknowledged the complainant was provided with inadequate information about the requirements of the role during the recruitment process and undertook review relevant policies and procedures to prevent similar incidents in the future. The organisation also undertook to review its parental leave policy and to train all staff on anti-discrimination principles.

The complainant attended the respondent entertainment and dining venue. She alleged that when returning to the venue after stepping out with friends, the bouncer used an entry stamp depicting male genitalia.

The venue said the stamp was not intended to be offensive, but rather, ‘tongue in cheek’. The venue said it would give careful consideration to what stamps were used in the future.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the venue cease using the stamp referred to in the complaint, write to the complainant apologising for the incident and deliver anti-discrimination training to staff.

The complainant was employed by the respondent cleaning and maintenance service to perform pool and yard maintenance duties in a remote location. She informed the company she was pregnant because she was experiencing severe morning sickness and was concerned at the potential risk of heavy lifting and use of chemicals. The company allowed her to perform administrative duties during her pregnancy in accordance with medical advice that she was fit to perform ‘light duties’. The complainant alleged that the company told her that, before she could return to work after maternity leave, she would need to obtain medical clearance from practitioners in the state’s capital city, participate in a work conditioning program and undertake a fitness for duty assessment two or three months later. The complainant claimed she had no option but to resign.

The company claimed the information provided by the complainant regarding her fitness to return to work was insufficient given she had been performing light duties for some time and had been absent for 60 days in the 12-month period before beginning maternity leave. The company claimed a medical assessment recommended the complainant undertake a work conditioning program because she had poor upper-limb function, trunk strength, lifting ability and cardiovascular fitness. The company denied requiring the complainant to access services or professionals in the capital city. The company claimed she was unable to perform the inherent requirements of her role and no adjustments could be provided to address this.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $9,000, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The company also agreed to review its policies to better address issues that may arise concerning pregnant workers in remote locations and to deliver training on equal employment opportunity to management and leadership representatives in the complainant’s work location.

The complainant worked at the respondent university and claimed her manager, an academic, discriminated against her on the ground of her sex by undermining her, commenting on her appearance and referring to her as ‘looking good, but not adding any value to the portfolio’. She said the manager resigned after she made a complaint about him. She claimed there was a ‘boys’ club’ culture and she was not offered promotional opportunities that she had been promised or that she had sought. She alleged another academic sexually harassed her by making comments including ‘you’re pretty hot’. She said that after she made a complaint about this behaviour, her manager treated her less favourably and another academic did not support the renewal of her contract.

The respondents claimed the alleged comments were mischaracterised by the complainant and were not of a sexual nature. The university claimed the complainant was not the most qualified person for the promotional opportunities and that her contract was not renewed for operational reasons.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university pay the complainant $17,500.

The complainant identifies as a trans woman and alleged her superannuation fund persisted in addressing correspondence to her former male name.

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

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the superannuation fund to update the complainant’s record to reflect her correct name and gender identity.

The complainant’s sons have language difficulties and anxiety and his father-in-law, who resides with the family, has Parkinson’s disease and dementia. The complainant worked at the respondent bank was was undertaking a secondment in a senior consultant role. He alleged his team leader told him the bank did not want him to continue in the secondment because of his family responsibilities.

The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader met with him to discuss ongoing concerns about his stress levels. The bank claimed the complainant’s team leader was aiming to remove stress from the complainant’s work to enable him to focus on his family situation. The bank said its intention was to support the complainant and not to discriminate against him.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement to end the employment relationship. The bank agreed to pay the complainant $45,000 less applicable tax and inclusive of all statutory entitlements. The bank also agreed to provide the complainant with a statement of service and a contact point for prospective employers. 

The complainant worked as a store and deli team member with the respondent supermarket. She alleged a more senior team member sexually harassed her including by sending her text and online messages asking her on a date, asking what she looked like without her head scarf and telling her she was sexy. She alleged that when she made a complaint to Human Resources, the matter was not properly investigated and she was threatened with disciplinary action.

The supermarket claimed the complainant and individual respondent were in a relationship and the alleged conduct was reciprocated by the complainant. The supermarket said it could not substantiate allegations of sexual harassment and therefore reminded both staff members of their obligations with respect to appropriate workplace behaviour. The supermarket also required both staff members to complete an online training module on the supermarket’s code of conduct.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The supermarket agreed to pay the complainant $27,000 ex-gratia and provide her with a statement of service. Both respondents agreed to write to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to her complaint.

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 the primary carer for her grand-daughter, who has Autism, and for a number of relatives. She advised she had worked for the respondent government agency as an auditor for several years. She said she had been permitted to work two days per week and to use purchased leave to accommodate her family responsibilities. The complainant claimed that, after a restructure, the agency informed her she would be required to work three or four days per week and to take less or no purchased leave. The complainant had taken personal leave and become unwell.

The government agency denied discriminating against the complainant but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the matter.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the government agency offer the complainant a graduated return to work in a new two-day per week position. The agency also advised the complainant she would have access to purchased leave.

The complainant worked as a fulltime assistant manager for the respondent financial/accountancy company. She alleged a male company director told her she could not be promoted because she had children, was unable to work long hours and he could not have a woman represent the company to clients. She also alleged the director did not allow her to work from home or to access personal and annual leave, unlike other staff. Finally, she alleged that the director threatened her employment when she told him she was unable to work longer hours due to her family responsibilities. 

The director and the company denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $15,000 in compensation for hurt and distress. The director left the company and the complainant remained employed with the company under the supervision of a different manager.