Conciliation Register

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 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 worked as a waitress at the respondent fast food restaurant. She alleged that the owner sexually harassed her including by sending her a text message asking her if she wanted to ‘try a new banana’ while her boyfriend was away, asking her out and propositioning her to have sex with him for money. The complainant resigned before lodging the complaint with the Commission.

On being notified of the complaint the restaurant owner agreed to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the restaurant pay the complainant $1,000. The restaurant owner also agreed to provide the complainant with a written apology and undertake training about sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

The complainant was employed by an international not-for-profit organisation as a project manager. She alleged that shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy, her position was made redundant. She claimed the organisation told her that the fundraising team she was working in would be abolished as part of an organisational restructure. She alleged that prior to disclosing her pregnancy she had been told there would be on going work opportunities for her notwithstanding any organisational restructure.

The organisation claimed the complainant's sex and pregnancy had no bearing on the decision to make her position redundant. The organisation noted it had supported the complainant throughout two previous pregnancies, offering her significant flexibility upon her return to work in both instances.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation provide the complainant with a written reference and pay her approximately $7,750, equivalent to eight weeks' pay.

The complainant was employed as a security officer with the respondent entertainment company. She claimed that a male security officer sexually harassed her by sending her romantic poetry by text message, befriending her on a social networking site and saying things to her like 'I love you' and 'You are my wife'. She said she made an internal complaint about the conduct and while the company told her some of her allegations were substantiated she was not provided with written information about the outcome of the investigation and the company continued to place her on the same rostered hours as the other officer. She said she felt unable to return to the workplace.

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 company pay the complainant $10,000 as general damages and provide her with a letter outlining the findings of its internal investigation. The individual respondent agreed to provide the complainant with a written apology stating it was never his intention to upset or harass her. It was also agreed that the complainant would return to work, subject to medical clearance.

The complainant was employed by the respondent building company. She claimed that while she was at work, the owner/director of the company filmed her underpants, buttocks and thighs with his mobile phone without her knowledge or consent.

On being advised of the complaint the owner/director indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter through conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the owner/director of the company would pay the complainant $20,000 as general damages.