Conciliation Register

The complainant has rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and drives to the hospital where she works because she is unable to use public transport. She said she was permitted to park in the underground car park of the building where she worked as an adjustment for her disability. She claimed her employer, the respondent medical services company, directed staff to no longer use the underground car park. The complainant said she was unable to use other nearby car parks because the walking distance to work was too great.

The company advised that the decision not to allow staff to use the underground car park was made by the hospital where the company is located. The company said employees were reinbursed for the cost of using neighbouring car parks.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be permitted to use the hospital care park and be reinbursed for parking costs at the same rate as her colleagues.

The complainant had been employed with the respondent government agency for about 10 years. He took time off work to seek treatment for depression. The complainant claimed the agency identified his position for redundancy because there were concerns he would not return to ‘full health’.

The agency claimed the complainant’s position was made redundant for legitimate operational reasons and his disability was not a factor in the decision.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the agency pay the complainant $97,500 as an eligible termination payment and provide him with a reference.

The complainant’s adult son has an intellectual disability. She claimed that the respondent law enforcement agency failed to provide her son with an advocate when arresting him and he was therefore unable to understand what was happening.

The law enforcement agency confirmed the complainant’s son was not provided with an advocate, but denied that this was discriminatory.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the law enforcement agency add information to the complainant’s son’s file to the effect that he should be provided with an advocate to ensure he understands relevant information and procedures.

The complainant claimed that two months after she started work as a Bid Manager the respondent security company terminated her employment because of her criminal record. She claimed she had told a HR Manager about a six-year-old charge when she started employment.

The company said the complainant’s criminal record check indicated she had been charged, but not convicted, of obtaining advantage from a Commonwealth entity six years earlier and of theft over 30 years earlier. The company claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of her role. The company advised that it had since commissioned an external company to conduct criminal record checks of applicants and employees to ensure relevant information is obtained as early as possible.

The complaint resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $12,650 less appropriate tax.

The complainant claimed the respondent private transport company told him he was not eligible for work as a driver because of his criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of dishonestly obtaining money over 20 years earlier. He claimed the company did not offer him the opportunity to discuss the circumstances surrounding his criminal record or its relevance to the job.

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 $6,000 as general damages. The company also undertook to consider future applications by people with a criminal record on a case-by-case basis.

The complainant said the respondent airline required each infant passenger to be accompanied by an adult and therefore his two infant twins were unable to travel with their mother only.

The airline confirmed each infant under the age of 23 months must travel with an adult. The airline claimed this policy was consistent with safety and regulatory requirements.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the airline offer the complainant $1,000 in credit towards future airline tickets.

The complainant worked at the respondent car dealership and was the only female employee in her team. She claimed that, because of her sex, the dealership excluded her from participating in a team competition and dealt harshly with her in relation to an internal complaint she made. She also alleged colleagues sexually harassed her including by asking her about her sex life, making gestures of a sexual nature and commenting on her daughter's breasts when she visited the complainant at work. The complainant has a medical condition which causes hair loss and she wears a wig. She claimed a colleague continuously questioned her about her wearing a wig despite knowing the reason why.

The dealership denied the allegations of sex and disability discrimination and claimed that, while conduct of a sexual nature occurred at the dealership, the complainant was an active participant and instigator in the conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the dealership pay the complainant $7,500 as general damages and provide her with a statement of service. At the time agreement was reached, the complainant had been assessed as unfit for work due to psychological injury caused by workplace events. She indicated she did not intend to return to her employment at the dealership.

One of the complainants is a transgender woman who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received hormone treatment. She and her female partner claimed the respondent fertility clinic  told them it would be unlikely to apply for any Medicare rebate for fertility treatment because it did not consider the couple would be eligible due to a 'choice' to be infertile as a result of hormone treatment.

The clinic said its intention had been to clarify upfront the costs that the complainants may face in light of the Medicare regime. The clinic noted Medicare provided rebates for 'clinically relevant services' and so it was unclear whether same-sex couples would be eligible for Medicare rebates. The clinic claimed the complainants were invited to obtain a written assurance from Medicare that a claim would be processed.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the clinic write to the complainants apologising for the incident and deliver training to staff on gender identity and disability discrimination.

The complainant worked at the respondent bakery and claimed its owner sexually harassed her by making comments such as ‘Do you like soft bananas?’, ‘Do you take your teeth out when you eat bananas?’, and ‘Don't make too many babies tonight’. The complainant said she resigned because of the alleged conduct.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bakery pay the complainant $15,000 and provide all staff with training on sexual harassment. The owner agreed to write to the complainant acknowledging that there had been inappropriate conduct in the workplace.

The complainant has depression and an eating disorder and worked as an administrative assistant at the respondent aged care facility. She claimed the human resources manager often asked her if she had eaten, offered her food scraps, and said in front of colleagues that ‘you don't need lunch’ and ‘you're looking too skinny’. She claimed the same manager also sexually harassed her, including by making comments about ejaculating in her coffee, showing her a film of naked women dancing and talking about his sexual relationships in front of her. The aged care facility did not renew the complainant’s employment contract.

The respondents denied the allegations and claimed they were unaware of the complainant’s disability.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the aged care facility pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages, provide her with a detailed statement of service and conduct training for staff regarding its complaint and grievance procedures.

The complainant is 26 years of age and was looking for work when he came across the respondent's takeaway food outlet’s advertisement. He claimed the advertisement said the business was looking for a ‘mature aged lady’ and he alleged that this was age and sex discrimination.

The business owner explained she was looking for someone older as the person would be more likely to have the maturity to eventually take over the business. She noted all her employees were women and claimed most of her customers were male and preferred chatting to a woman when ordering their food.

The complaint was resolved after the business owner undertook to omit any mention of preferred age or sex of applicants in future advertisements. The complainant was also satisifed that the business owner had gained a greater understanding of her obligations under federal anti-discrimination legislation through involvement in the complaint process.

The complainants alleged the respondent private boarding high school expelled their 14-year-old daughter following reports that she had kissed and hugged another female student.

The school claimed the complainants’ daughter’s behaviour was in breach of the student code of conduct.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the school pay the complainants $10,000 and write to their daughter expressing regret for the circumstances in which which she was excluded from the school. The school also agreed to develop and implement an anti-discrimination policy and relevant training for students and staff and to review a range of policies concerning the management of student behaviour.

The complainant was employed as a supervisor with the respondent agricultural company and lived in a share house with two female colleagues and her male manager. She claimed her manager sexually harassed her including by telling her that he wanted to kiss her, telling her he had received oral sex from a prostitute, tickling, touching and kissing her, saying ‘I want to make love to you’ and inviting her on a five-week holiday with him. She claimed when she asked her manager not to touch her he became unduly critical of her work and sent her home. The complainant said she left her job and the share house.

On being advised of the complaint, the company and the manager indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company and the manager pay the complainant $25,000 as general damages and write to her apologising for the events giving rise to the complaint. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and not to disparage each other.

The complainant injured her back in the course of her work as a fulltime sales executive with the respondent furniture company. She claimed the company failed to follow medical recommendations for a modified desk and restricted warehouse duties. The complainant said about a month later the company terminated her employment citing a breach of contract, which she disputed.

The company claimed the complainant’s desk was modified in accordance with medical recommendations and she was not required to work in the warehouse. The company said the complainant’s employment was terminated because she breached the company’s policy in relation to soliciting customers of other franchisees, despite having already received a warning about the issue.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.

The complainant has a physical disability and uses a wheelchair. She claimed she was unable to access certain places of worship in order to practice her faith and attend religious services, meetings and talks because of the lack of wheelchair access.

On being advised of the complaint the respondent religious body indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the religious body develop and implement a Disability Action Plan.