Conciliation Register

The complainant applied for employment as a Protective Services Officer with the respondent law enforcement agency. He said he passed the entrance exam, the traffic and criminal record checks and the fitness test. The complainant disclosed he had experienced a short period of depression and had undergone spinal surgery several years earlier but had no ongoing medical conditions. He claimed the law enforcement agency told him his current application and any future applications would not be considered because he was deemed medically unfit for the role.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency review the complainant’s file with respect to medical suitability in light of additional information the complainant would provide.

The complainant worked for the respondent club in a hospitality role. She alleged her supervisor sexually harassed her including by making comments of a sexual nature about her sexual activities and asking if she wanted ‘a threesome’. The complainant claimed that on returning to work after maternity leave, she was allocated night and weekend shifts, despite being a single parent with two children. She also claimed her manager was abusive towards her if her children were sick or if she could not organise a baby sitter. The complainant alleged that because she attempted to assert her rights regarding her family responsibilities, the club pressured her to resign and she left her employment.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the club pay the complainant $6,000.

The complainant has an assistance animal trained to alleviate the effects of a psychosocial disability. He claimed that towards the end of a sporting event at the respondent stadium, staff told him he was not allowed to remain with his assistance animal. He said the discussion became heated and officers of the respondent law enforcement agency approached. The complainant claimed these officers did not respond appropriately to the situation.

The stadium confirmed staff approached the complainant because he was accompanied by a dog, but noted that he was ultimately allowed to remain until the end of the sporting event.

The law enforcement agency confirmed officers noticed the interaction between the complainant and stadium staff had become heated and approached to provide assistance if required. The law enforcement agency said officers took no further action once it became clear the situation had been dealt with.

The complaint was resolved. The stadium agreed to offer the complainant eight free tickets to future sporting events. The law enforcement agency agreed to remind officers of the right of persons with disability to be accompanied by an assistance animal.

The complainant has a mobility disability and uses a wheelchair. She claimed she was required to try on clothes in an open lounge area at the respondent retailer’s store because the only accessible changeroom was in the children’s department and being used for storage.

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 clear signage to accessible changerooms and clearly label accessible changerooms on store maps;

• ensure accessible changerooms are unlocked and empty of stock;

• write to the complainant apologising for the incident; and

• compensate the complainant for the legal costs she incurred in relation to her complaint.

The complainant was employed at the respondent food processing company. She alleged a coworker sexually harassed her by actions which included touching and groping her, asking her about her sex life, demanding hugs and kisses, commenting on her appearance and making sexual gestures. The complainant said she had made an internal complaint but no action was taken. She claimed that it became increasingly difficult to do her job while the coworker was present and she therefore left her employment.

The company said such allegations are taken very seriously but claimed an internal investigation did not support the complainant’s allegations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $4,500 ex gratia. The parties also agreed not to make disparaging comments about each other.

The complainant has depression, anxiety and asthma and was employed by the respondent retailer as a casual sales associate. He alleged a district manager abused and made fun of him because of his disability and sexually harassed him, including by telling him to “get on his knees and blow customers and if the dick is too big for your throat, just have a quick inhale of your puffer and stick it down further”. He claimed the retailer took no action in response to his complaint about the alleged treatment and later terminated his employment.

The retailer and district manager denied any knowledge of the complainant’s disability. The district manager denied making the alleged comments and the retailer said it had no record of any informal or formal complaints about the alleged treatment. The retailer said the complainant resigned when his shifts were reduced because he was found to be dishonest during an investigation into internal theft.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer pay the complainant $8,000 as an eligible termination payment.

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 claimed her Deaf son was unable to access a performance because a sign-language interpreter was not available.

On being advised of the complaint the company that staged the event agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide sign-language interpreters for several performances in each city and set aside a number of places for Deaf persons wishing to attend those performances.

The complainant uses a wheelchair and participated and presented at the respondent professional institute's research conference, which was hosted by the respondent hospitality school. He alleged he was unable to access the stage because there was no ramp. He also claimed he was unable to attend the conference dinner because it was held at a venue that was not wheelchair accessible.

On being advised of the complaint the professional institute and the hospitality school agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respodnents write to the complainant apologising for his experience at the conference and develop policies and procedures to ensure the accessibility of future events to participants with disability. The hospitality school also agreed to pay the complainant $1,000 in compensation for costs associated with attending the conference.

The complainants are vision impaired and one uses a guide dog. They claimed two drivers from the respondent transport service refused to carry them because one of them was accompanied by a guide dog.

The transport service advised that drivers are made aware of the company’s policies regarding carriage of passengers with assistance animals. The transport service said the two drivers concerned were counselled and reminded of their obligation to carry passengers with assistance animals.

The complainants were satisfied that the actions taken by the transport service in response to their complaint resolved the matter.

The complainant has an intellectual disability and holds a companion card, which entitles him to free tickets for certain events for his companion. He sought to book tickets for himself and his companion for an event on the respondent company's website. He said he was unable to make the booking online and there was no information available about alternative booking methods. The complainant ultimately purchased two full-price tickets online.

The company said those seeking to book tickets for companions should do so by phone or email as this ensures customers’ specific needs are met. The company acknowledgeed information about the correct booking process may not have been clearly displayed on its website.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company:

set up a phone line dedicated to customers with specific needs;

provide clear information for people with specific booking needs on its website;

pay the complainant approximately $280 in compensation for the difference in ticket cost;

and set up a working group to investigate the possibility of booking companion tickets online.

The complainant has a mobility disability and claimed she was unable to use the accessible toilet facilities at a bus terminal because they were locked. She said businesses at and near the bus terminal told her they did not have a key to the accessible toilet facilities.

The company that operated the bus terminal advised a key to the accessible toilet facilities should have been available from the bus company desks located at the terminal.

The complaint was resolved after the company reminded bus companies located at the terminal that they should hold a key to the accessible toilet facilities and provide it on request. The company also placed signage on the toilet door advising how the key could be obtained.

The complainant has anxiety and depression and had a major episode a couple of years previously while employed as an electrician with the respondent company. He claimed that on returning to work colleagues treated him less favourably because of his disability including by calling him names. The complainant claimed the company was aware of the alleged treatment but took no action. He also claimed the company began offering him less work and ultimately terminated his employment. He also alleged the company victimised him after he made a complaint about the alleged treatment.

The company denied any knowledge of the complainant's disability or that colleagues were calling him names. The company said there was no record of the complainant making an internal complaint and claimed that any allegations would have been investigated in accordance with relevant procedures. The company said the complainant was dismissed because of unsatisfactory performance, dishonesty in the investigation process and a breach of company procedure.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company provide the complainant with a statement of service and a number of counselling sessions through its Employee Assistance Provider.