Conciliation Register

The complainant operates a veterinary business and purchased products from the respondent pharmaceutical company. She advised she attended a conference and dinner arranged and paid for by the company. She alleged that during the dinner an employee of the company sexually harassed her, including by asking her if her nipples were pierced and telling her “I can’t wait to get your smell on my pillow”. The complainant claimed the company failed to respond appropriately when she raised concerns about the individual’s behaviour.

The pharmaceutical company said the complainant’s allegations were investigated. The company said the individual involved confirmed he made some, but not all, the alleged comments. The company claimed the complainant was advised that the company issued the individual concerned with a formal warning and that it would consider terminating his employment should a similar incident occur in the future. The company argued it was not liable for the actions of the individual because it had responded appropriately to the complainant’s concerns. 

The complaint was resolved. The pharmaceutical company acknowledged and expressed regret for the distress the complainant experienced as a result of the events complained of. The individual involved acknowledged and expressed regret for the adverse effects the complainant experienced as a result of his comments and undertook never to behave in that way again. The respondents agreed to pay the complainant $16,000 in compensation for hurt and distress.

The complainant said he is an Indigenous man and was employed in a reception and administration role with the respondent Indigenous community organisation. He advised that he applied for a house provided by his employer for him and his same-sex partner. The complainant claimed a director of the organisation’s Board told another applicant that the organisation wanted to offer “a poofter and his man” the house and that he would take action to prevent this from happening. He said the organisation offered the other applicant the house and he now felt uncomfortable returning to the workplace because of the director’s comments.

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

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The community organisation agreed to pay the complainant $3,000, provide him with a positive reference and a written apology from the organisation’s Board.

The complainant was pregnant and was studying nursing at the respondent university. She claimed the university told her she would be unable to enrol in residential school when more than 36 weeks into her pregnancy because the course would involve administering CPR and manual handling.

On being notified of the complaint, the university indicated a willingness to try and resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the university allow the complainant to enrol in residential school subject to medical clearance to participate in the course. The university also undertook to revise its policies and procedures to enable pregnant students to enrol in residential school regardless of the stage of the their pregnancy provided they have medical clearance to undertake the relevant course.

The complainant worked in a part-time administrative role with the respondent small business and was the only woman in the workplace. She alleged a colleague sexually harassed her, including by asking her to have coffee with him, staring at her breasts, asking her for naked “selfies” and making comments of a sexual nature. The complainant claimed that after she made an internal complaint about the alleged conduct, the business asked her to work longer hours, which she was unable to do because of caring responsibilities, and told her that her duties would include cleaning the men’s toilet. She said she felt she had no option but to resign. 

On being advised of the complaint, the business and former colleague agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant $17,000 and that both respondents write to her expressing their regret for the distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant had been employed as a casual food and beverage attendant at the respondent hotel for two months and said she was offered a regular pattern of shifts. She claimed that after she was hospitalised and took time off work because of  abdominal pains related to her pregnancy, the hotel allocated her shifts to a colleague and offered her no further work.

The hotel claimed it was unaware that the complainant’s medical issues were related to a pregnancy. The hotel noted that the complainant was a casual employee and as such had no guarantee of regular shifts or ongoing work.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the hotel pay the complainant $2,250 ex-gratia.

The complainant is a non-binary person. The complainant alleged the respondent barber told her she would not cut the complainant’s hair because she was not proficient in cutting women’s hair, despite being told the complainant did not identify as a woman and was seeking a short haircut.

The barber said she thought the complainant was a woman and therefore declined to cut the complainant’s hair because she was not proficient in cutting women’s hair.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business deliver training to at least one staff member from each of its stores on awareness of issues relating to gender identity and gender diversity.

The complainant has a baby and school-aged child and works at the respondent retail outlet. She claimed the retailer refused her request to return to work on a part-time basis following maternity leave. 

On being notified of the complaint, the retailer agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the retailer allow the complainant to return to work on a part-time basis following her maternity leave.

 

The complainant alleged a director at the respondent car dealership sexually harassed her, including by making comments about her perfume, calling her a 'naughty girl' and manufacturing situations to be alone with her. She advised she had consensual sexual intercourse with the director after a work function, but later felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by this. The complainant alleged the director sent her flirtatious text messages and slapped her bottom at work. She claimed that after she told the director she would like this behaviour to stop, he asked her if she was pregnant and directed her to bypass her manager and discuss all work-related issues with him. The complainant claimed the director told her she should resign after she told him she felt uncomfortable with his behaviour. She said she felt she had no option but to resign.

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the director pay the complainant $5,000.

 

The complainants, a same-sex couple, sought treatment from the respondent fertility clinic. They alleged staff at the clinic discriminated against them, including by misrepresenting the treatment options available to them, telling them they were not considered a "family" and telling them they were not entitled to the Medicare rebate because their infertility was "social" rather than "medical".

The clinic claimed any inconsistencies with respect to treatment options were unrelated to the complainants’ sexual orientation. The clinic confirmed staff had discussed Medicare eligibility criteria with the complainants, but denied making the alleged comments. The clinic said many of its clients are same-sex couples.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the clinic engage an LGBTQI community group to deliver anti-discrimination training to staff. The clinic also agreed to pay the complainants $30,000 as general damages. 

 

The complainant advised she was breastfeeding her child at a café located near a place of worship. She claimed a staff member placed a blanket over her and asked her not to breastfeed her baby in public.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent religious institution apologised to the complainant for her experience and undertook to deliver training to its staff on discrimination and the right to breastfeed in public.

The complaint was resolved. The religious institution agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the incident and confirmed its commitment to deliver training to staff on discrimination. The religious institution also agreed to contribute $1,000 towards the cost of the complainant completing a lactation consultatnt training course.

The complainant advised she was breastfeeding her child at a café located near a place of worship. She claimed a staff member placed a blanket over her and asked her not to breastfeed her baby in public.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent religious institution apologised to the complainant for her experience and undertook to deliver training to its staff on discrimination and the right to breastfeed in public.

The complaint was resolved. The religious institution agreed to write to the complainant apologising for the incident and confirmed its commitment to deliver training to staff on discrimination. The religious institution also agreed to contribute $1,000 towards the cost of the complainant completing a lactation consultant training course.

The complainant was employed as a paralegal at the respondent law firm.  She claimed that her manager sexually harassed her, including by touching her bottom, trying to kiss her, telling her to 'dress hot and sexy', and describing what he would like to do to her if they were to have sex.  She claimed the firm terminated her employment after she made an internal complaint about her manager's alleged conduct.

The firm claimed it responded promptly and appropriately to the complainant's internal complaint, removing the manager from the workplace.  The firm said the complainant's employment was terminated for performance and conduct reasons, and not because she had made a complaint.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the firm pay the complainant $30,000 as general damages, characterise the end of the employment relationship as a resignation and provide her with a statement of service.  The firm and the complainant's former manager also agreed to write to the complainant expressing their regret for any distress associated with the events giving rise to the complaint.  The firm agreed to deliver equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination training to staff and managers at the firm.

The complainant is a single-parent of two young children and was employed as a car detailer for the respondent car wash service business. She advised she sometimes had to leave work early to collect her children, one of whom has a disability, from school or vacation care if one or both became unwell. She claimed her manager told her he may not be able to keep employing her if she kept leaving work early to collect her children. The complainant claimed the manager told her she was the highest paid detailer in the business, which she interpreted as an insinuation that he could employ someone younger at a cheaper hourly rate. She claimed she was asked to return her uniform and considered she would not be offered further work.

The business advised it employed staff between the ages of 19 and 63 years of age. The business claimed it offered the complainant as much flexibility as practicable in order to accommodate her caring responsibilities. The business noted the complainant was a casual employee and said she remained on the books.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant $2,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the distress she experienced. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.

The complainant is a single-parent of two young children and was employed as a car detailer for the respondent car wash service business.  She advised she sometimes had to leave work early to collect her children, one of whom has a disability, from school or vacation care if one or both became unwell.  She claimed her manager told her he may not be able to keep employing her if she kept leaving work early to collect her children.  The complainant claimed the manager told her she was the highest paid detailer in the business, which she interpreted as an insinuation that he could employ someone younger at a cheaper hourly rate.  She claimed she was asked to return her uniform and considered she would not be offered further work.

The business advised it employed staff between the ages of 19 and 63 years of age.  The business claimed it offered the complainant as much flexibility as practicable in order to accommodate her caring responsibilities.  The business noted the complainant was a casual employee and said she remained on the books.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant $2,000 as general damages, provide her with a statement of service and write to her expressing regret for the distress she experienced.  The parties agreed to end the employment relationship.