ADC Annual Report 2000/2001

The Complainant was employed as an instructor in remote communities.  He had a three-year-old daughter and sought permission from his employer for his daughter to regularly accompany him to work.  When this permission was refused he made a complaint alleging that his employer had discriminated against him on the basis of parenthood and engaged in the prohibited conduct of failing to accommodate his special need as a parent.  The Commissioner rejected the complaint on the ground that the complaint was misconceived because the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 do not go so far as to produce a requirement for employers to permit employees to regularly bring their children to work with them.

The Complainant was a mother with a baby.  She was refused access to some public buses unless she folded up the baby's pram.  This was a problem because the baby had a medical condition that required it to lay flat as much as possible.  The bus drivers were of the view that prams had to be folded for safety and the convenience of other passengers.  A conciliation conference was held involving the Complainant, a number of bus drivers, and personnel and management representatives from several bus companies.  The conference was a positive and productive venue for all parties, and led to a satisfactory resolution of the Complainant's concerns, and a redrafting of the policies and practices relating to the special needs of parents travelling with children on buses.

The Complainant was a diabetic. He applied for employment and was refused on the basis that the employer would not consider diabetics for the job.  There had been no attempt made to ascertain if he could meet the inherent requirements of the job.  At a Conciliation Conference the Respondent came to understand that automatically assuming a diabetic would be unable to do the job was discriminatory and very hurtful to the Complainant.  The Respondents apologized to the Complainant, paid him a cash settlement, and gave him a job.

The Complainant was a man who upon marriage had changed his name to his wife's name.  Following a divorce he sought to change his passport back to his birth name.  He was told that because he was a man he would have to pay the full cost of a new passport, whereas a woman in similar circumstances receives a new passport free of charge.  He complained that this was sex discrimination.  On investigation of this complaint it was discovered that in fact the policy of the passport office was identical for both men and women, and that the Complainant had been incorrectly advised and should not have had to pay for his passport in those circumstances.  The Respondent apologised, refunded the fee charged for the passport, and sent out a memo to all passport offices in Australia ensuring that all staff were informed of the correct policy.

The Complainant was given a trial shift as a shop clerk in a retail store.  When she returned for a shift the next day she was told that she was not needed.  When she asked for a reason she was told that she was the 'wrong age'.  The Respondent demonstrated that age was not the real reason they did not hire the Complainant, but acknowledged that giving age as a reason was hurtful and distressing to her.  They offered an apology and a settlement to compensate her.

The Complainant claimed that it was race discrimination that he wasn't eligible for jobs which are reserved for persons of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. It was explained to him that, while this is a form of discrimination on the basis of race, it is not unlawful, because the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 provides an exemption for programs, plans or arrangements designed to promote equality of opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged.  Aboriginal people are a disadvantaged group within society.  Specifically designated jobs for this group are a special measure and the complainant therefore did not disclose discrimination within the meaning of the Act.

The Complainant applied for a position at a church-operated organisation.  She was not hired for the job, and comments made by the employer led her to believe that only people who practiced a certain religion had been considered for the job.  At a conciliation conference the Respondent satisfied the Complainant that religion had not been a factor in the decision not to hire her, and apologised for the distress this impression had caused her.  The Respondent also came to understand that, unless affiliation with a certain religion was clearly a requirement for carrying out the duties of a job, it was unlawful discrimination to use religion as a criterion for hiring.  They agreed to implement changes to the organisation's hiring practices to ensure that they were non-discriminatory.