Conciliation Register

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.

The complainant is Brazilian and worked at the respondent club. She alleged her supervisor sexually harassed her, including by grabbing her waist and squeezing and responding to a comment from someone who thought the complainant and a colleague were his daughters by saying ‘If you knew what I was thinking of doing with my daughters...’ The complainant also alleged that a club member asked her ‘because you are Brazilian, how deep do you go?’ (referencing oral sex) while making suggestive gestures towards his crotch. She claimed management did not respond appropriately when she complained about the alleged conduct. The complainant resigned from her employment shortly after lodging her complaint with the Commission.

The club claimed it took reasonable steps to identify the member who made the alleged comments to the complainant. The club also claimed the alleged comments were recollected and interpreted differently by the complainant and her colleagues.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the club to ensure all staff undertake online induction before commencement. The club also agreed to deliver training to staff on discrimination and sexual harassment, and to provide interpreters where required. The club agreed to pay the complainant $1,000 and offer her access to three Employee Assistance Program sessions. Finally, the club undertook not to employ the supervisor in any capacity for three months or only as a bartender for six months.

The complainant is Aboriginal and undertook a graduate program with the respondent government department. She acted in higher duties for a period and applied for the role when it was advertised. The complainant was not invited to attend an interview and sought feedback from the head of the interview panel. She alleged he told her that discussing her Aboriginality in her application was a factor in the decision not to interview her and may hinder her prospects of progression. She also alleged that he said the woman who was interviewed wore ‘a nice skirt and heels’, which made her feel her appearance/grooming was being criticised. The complainant said she made an internal complaint about the alleged comments but was unhappy with the department’s response to the complaint. At the time of lodging the complaint, the complainant was on leave without pay and undertaking a Masters degree for which she had been awarded a scholarship.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the department write to the complainant acknowledging and apologising for her negative experience, stating that the alleged conduct was unacceptable and assuring her that steps were being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. The department also granted the complainant an additional year of leave without pay to allow her to complete her Masters degree and agreed to meet with her to discuss a safe and sustainable return to work. Finally, the department agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 in compensation for hurt and distress.

The complainant was employed at the respondent catering and events company. She alleged a male co-worker sexually harassed her at the work Christmas party, including by telling her he had been watching her ‘strut [her] stuff around the office’ and pinching her bottom three times. She said she made an internal complaint about the incident. She claimed the company originally discouraged her from pursuing the matter and then failed to support her during the complaint process. The complainant said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $5,000 as general damages. The company also agreed to contract an Employee Assistance Program for use by its employees, to review and re-launch it sexual harassment policy and grievance procedures, and to conduct training on anti-discrimination and equal opportunity law with its management team.

The complainant alleged a contractor working on the same construction site as her sexually harassed her, including by asking her to have sex with him on multiple occasions and making sexualised comments about her body. She said she eventually resigned from her employment because she did not wish to work alongside the contractor.

On being advised of the complaint, the contractor and his employer indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the contractor’s employer pay the complainant $8,000 and revise its sexual harassment policy. The contractor apologised to the complainant and his employer advised disciplinary action had been taken in relation to the alleged behaviour.

The complainant is 73 years of age and was employed in a senior management role by the respondent metallurgy business. She alleged the business manager discriminated against her because of her age and sex, including by commenting that she ‘couldn't work forever’, asking her to nominate a retirement date, referring to her as ‘back office staff’ rather than senior management, excluding her from senior management meetings, refusing to give her a pay rise and relocating her to a different building isolated from head office. 

The company claimed the complainant commented that she would ‘not be around’ in the future and that discussions about possible retirement were conducted as part of succession planning processes. The company said the complainant was relocated due to a business restructure and not because of her age or sex. The company said the complainant was included in meetings relevant to her work and was one of several staff who did not receive a pay rise that year.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant’s team would be renamed to more accurately reflect the work it performed, location of meetings would alternate between the complainant’s workplace and head office and the company would deliver training on equal employment opportunity to all staff. It was also agreed the company would not initiate any retirement discussions with the complainant, she would meet with her business manager weekly to discuss communication and any other concerns and she would receive a pay-rise the following year, pending overall business performance.

 

The complainant claimed the respondent labour-hire company failed to respond to her emails and phone calls or to offer her work when she sought to return from maternity leave on a part-time basis to accommodate family responsibilities. 

The company said that during the complainant's period of maternity leave, it lost a major labour supply contract and so there were no roles to offer her when she sought to return to work.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $1,00 ex gratia. The complainant remained employed with the company.

 

The complainant was employed at a food product factory. She alleged that during her pregnancy her manager called her ‘fat’ and said she would need a size 22 shirt when she asked for a size 14 shirt in front of other colleagues and told a colleague who touched her belly ‘don’t do that or she will yell at you’. The complainant also claimed she was required to perform physically demanding tasks without assistance when heavily pregnant. She said she felt she had no option but to resign her employment.

The company claimed the alleged comments were made in a friendly manner and there was no discrimination.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant approximately $1,720 as an eligible termination payment and deliver training to factory staff on pregnancy discrimination.

The complainant was employed as an accountant at the respondent mining company. She said she had a flexible working arrangement to work three days per week and finish each day at 5.00 pm so she could collect her daughter from childcare. She claimed that despite the flexible working arrangement, her manager verbally reprimanded her for leaving work at 5.00 pm and placed her under performance management. She also claimed that the company made her redundant after she made a complaint to this Commission.

The company claimed it held genuine concerns about the complainant’s performance unrelated to her family responsibilities or flexible work arrangement. The company claimed the process that resulted in the complainant’s redundancy began before the complainant made her complaint to the Commission and the complainant’s position was selected for redundancy by someone unaware of the complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company pay the complainant $15,000 as general damages, deliver anti-discrimination training to all staff and leadership training to all managers and implement a flexible work guideline incorporating the ability to work from home and access time in lieu.

The complainant worked as a manager at the respondent hotel. She claimed a director of the hotel sexually harassed her, including by hugging and trying to kiss her, putting his hand under her breast, asking where she bought her sex toys and telling her she was ‘beautiful’ and should ‘use her assets’ to improve business. She also claimed that when she contributed to a business discussion at a work-related social function, the director told her to ‘keep her ideas to herself and allow the men to do the thinking’. 

The hotel and its director claimed the complainant had engaged in behaviour of a sexual nature towards others similar to the behaviour being complained about. The hotel also argued the Commission had no jurisdiction to inquire into alleged conduct at the function referred to in the complaint as it was held away from the workplace and outside working hours.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and to resolve a related workers’ compensation claim. The hotel agreed to pay the complainant $20,000 ex gratia.

 

The complainant is a teenager and alleged her manager sexually harassed her, including by asking her how much he would have to pay her to have sex with him, whether she masturbated and whether she had ever had an orgasm. She also alleged he offered to buy her a vibrator. She said she made a complaint to a senior manager, but he took no action and allowed the conduct to continue. She also alleged that when she made a complaint to HR her manager contacted her and tried to intimidate her so she would withdraw her complaint. The complainant said she had not returned to work because she felt unsafe.

 

The retailer argued the conduct was not sexual harassment because it was not unwelcome and claimed the complainant engaged in conduct of a sexual nature at work, including making comments of a sexual nature, rating the attractiveness of men, telling her manager her nipples were pierced and telling him she would have sex with him. The retailer claimed it investigated the complainant’s allegations, offered her a transfer to a different outlet and took disciplinary action against her manager. The retailer advised the senior manager to whom the complainant had made the complaint had since left the business for unrelated reasons. 

The complaint was resolved and the parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The retailer agreed to pay the complainant approximately $40,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and deliver training on sexual harassment to its staff. The complainant’s former manager and senior manager agreed to write to the complainant apologising for any distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant alleged the respondent golf club required him to remove his singlet and put on a shirt to enter the bar area but did not require women to do the same.

The club confirmed it had a policy of not allowing men to wear a singlet inside the club.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the club to no longer require men not to wear singlets inside the club. The club also apologised to the complainant for his experience at the club.

The complainant was offered employment at the respondent logistics corporation. She said she informed the company of her pregnancy at interview and sought leave to begin ten weeks after her role started in order to have her baby. The complainant alleged that she was told she was not welcome at the company and that the company terminated her employment on the basis that she abandoned her employment.

The company claimed there was a dispute between the parties and the complainant stopped attending work. The company claimed it had no option but to terminate the complainant’s employment due to non-attendance.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company offer the complainant the role for which she successfully applied and make adjustments to her attendance at the workplace to accommodate her family responsibilities.

The complainant worked for the respondent not-for-profit fitness and sporting organisation. He alleged a male colleague sexually harassed him by making inappropriate comments, rubbing his groin against the complainant's leg while saying ‘I'm humping you’, making sexual comments and unwanted physical contact such as hugs. 

The organisation denied the allegations but agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship and the organisation agreed to pay the complainant $25,000 as compensation for hurt and distress.