Conciliation Register
| Act |
Other discrimination in employment |
| Grounds |
Criminal record |
| Areas |
Employment |
| Outcome details |
Compensation |
| Amount | $12,500 |
| Year |
The complainant claimed the respondent banking corporation withdrew an offer of employment because of his criminal record. He had been found guilty of using a carriage service to menace, but no conviction was recorded. The complainant said he disclosed his criminal record to the recruitment agency when appplying for the role.
The banking corporation said the complainant signed an undertaking about his character and conduct in a deed poll, despite being aware that he had a criminal record. The corporation claimed this conduct was inconsistent with the requirement that employees of the corporation demonstrate integrity, honesty, ethics, judgement and transparency.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the corporation pay the complainant $12,500 compensation.
| Act |
Age Discrimination Act |
| Grounds |
Age |
| Areas |
Employment |
| Outcome details |
Compensation |
| Amount | $1,800 |
| Year |
The complainant is 56 years of age and was employed on a casual basis as a kitchen hand at the respondent club. He claimed the club stopped offering him work and told him a younger person had been employed to cope with the upcoming busier Christmas period.
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 approximately $1800 in lieu of four weeks’ notice.
| Act |
Disability Discrimination Act |
| Grounds |
Disability aid Disability |
| Areas |
Goods, services and facilities |
| Outcome details |
Revised terms and conditions |
| Year |
The complainant uses a wheelchair and has been issued with a disability parking permit by the relevant authority. She alleged the respondent parking station issued her with a contravention notice after she remained parked in an accessible parking bay longer than the allocated time. She claimed the parking station should allow persons who have disability parking permits longer parking periods than those without such permits but was told the parking station charged all those using its service the same rates.
The parking station operator noted that many people with disability used the parking station to facilitate access to nearby medical services. It claimed placing two-hour limits on parking was reasonable to maximise access to the parking station.
The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the parking station convert two of its two-hour accessible parking bays to four-hour accessible parking bays. The parking station also agreed to improve signage about the location of payment points, promote its online payment system, show the complainant how to use the online payment system and forward feedback from the complainant to the provider of its payment machines.
