Case studies – conciliated complaints under the SDA
Following
is a selection of case studies of conciliated complaints of sex discrimination.
Additional case studies of sex
discrimination complaints resolved by HREOC are available in Harsh
Realities <link to
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sex_discrimination/harsh_2/index.html> and the conciliation
register.
Discrimination on the grounds of sex and family responsibilities
Susan applied for a client service
position with a Commonwealth government department. She claimed that during the
interview she was assured that she would be able to use flex time to attend to
her family responsibilities.
After the
six week training period was completed Susan said she asked to leave work one
hour early on two days each week, but her request was refused. She claimed she
was advised to apply for part-time work but her subsequent request for part-time
work was also refused. She said she was told that she should choose between her
family and her job – so she
resigned.
The Commonwealth department
told HREOC that Susan’s request to leave early two days each week was
refused because of phone roster arrangements. The department said Susan was told
that part-time work arrangements may be considered but could not be entered into
during her employment probation period.
The complaint was resolved through a
conciliation process, with the Commonwealth department agreeing to pay Susan
$10,000 compensation.
Complaint of sexual harassment
Jenny was
employed as an administrative assistant with an automotive company. She claimed
she was sexually harassed by her manager and co-workers – she said she was
sent e-mails of a sexual nature and asked questions about her boyfriend and her
sex life.
Jenny also alleged a co-worker
pulled his pants down to show her his penis and, another time, pushed his penis
against her car window as she was leaving the company car park. She said she
resigned because of this sexual
harassment.
The company denied the
allegations and said that Jenny had not complained to management about any
inappropriate behaviour. The company claimed that she actively engaged in
flirtatious and sexual behaviour with her manager and co-workers, including
e-mailing pornographic material, showing her bra strap and ‘G
string’ and taking part in conversations with sexual
content.
The parties resolved the
complaint through a conciliation process. Jenny agreed to withdraw her complaint
and the company agreed to provide her with verbal and written apologies, a
written reference and $21,000 compensation.
Pregnancy discrimination
Bronwyn was employed
full time as a machinist. She said that after she told her employer she was
pregnant she was given more difficult jobs to do and that fault was found with
her work. She also claimed that her manager made comments about how much she was
eating and her weight gain and made her feel lazy when she needed to use the
bathroom or rest because she was feeling faint. She resigned from her
position.
The company denied the
allegations and said that Bronwyn had asked for the particular jobs she was
given and had never made a request to have more frequent breaks during her
pregnancy. The company claimed that Bronwyn’s work had deteriorated and
she had resigned after being given a verbal warning about her work performance
and punctuality.
The complaint was
resolved at a conciliation conference with the company agreeing to provide
Bronwyn with a written apology and $2,000 compensation. The company also agreed
to implement an anti-discrimination policy in relation to pregnancy and provide
staff training.
Discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities
Megan had been employed as a
full-time sales assistant with a retail store for about six years. She claimed
that when a new store manager commenced, her hours were changed from 8.30am
– 4.30pm to 10.30am – 6.30pm.
Megan told her manager that she
couldn’t work the new hours because the day care centre her daughter
attended closed at 6pm. She said she spoke with the Area Manager about
transferring to another store but was told that she would still be required to
do the later shift two days per week. Megan resigned from her
job.
The company responded by saying
that changing business needs and trading patterns had required changes to the
shifts of all employees. The company said they had discussed various options
with Megan and that she was offered a transfer to another store where she could
work two days on a later shift and three days on her usual shift but she had
refused this offer.
The complaint was
resolved through conciliation with the company agreeing to re-employ Megan
full-time on an 8am - 5pm shift. The parties agreed that Megan may be rostered
to work at other agreed stores, providing the company gives the complainant at
least two days notice. The parties also agreed that no break in Megan’s
employment would be recorded.
Complaint of sexual harassment and race discrimination
Annie, who
has an Asian background, was employed as contract administrator with a building
company. She claimed that she was sexually harassed by a co-worker – that
he made numerous comments about her Asian background, told her she should wear a
short skirt and black boots “like those Asian school girls” and
showed her pornographic pictures of Asian women.
Annie said she raised concerns about
the co-worker’s behaviour with the General Manager who said he would deal
with the matter. Within about a month of making this complaint, however, she
claimed she was issued with two written warnings about her performance and her
employment was terminated.
The company
responded by saying that Annie had been subject to performance counselling
sessions before her dismissal for unsatisfactory performance. The company
confirmed that, during performance counselling, Annie had told her immediate
manager that she been harassed. The General Manager told her the procedure for
making a complaint but she did not make a formal complaint.
The co-worker denied Annie’s
allegations and claimed that she often used sexual innuendo, showed him
pornographic pictures and had exposed her breasts to him at a work party.
The complaint was resolved through
conciliation with the company agreeing to pay Annie $7,000 in general damages.
Pregnancy discrimination
Kerry had been
employed as a Regional Human Resources Manager with a large national retail
company for three years. She claimed that while she was on maternity leave she
was told that her position had been made redundant. She said that four of her
colleagues who held similar positions were successfully redeployed within three
weeks and that the person who occupied her position while she was on maternity
leave was also offered a similar position.
Kerry alleged that on return from
maternity leave she was placed in a project role, was not offered a comparable
permanent position and was advised to look for positions online. She said that
while she had been offered other positions within the human resources section,
they were either interstate or in other parts of the state in which she lives.
She also claimed that at least two senior appointments were made after her
return to work but she was not given the opportunity to apply.
In response the company stated that
numerous attempts were made to advise Kerry about the restructure while she was
on parental leave. The company claimed that at the time of the restructure Kerry
was offered four positions but she advised that she wished to remain on parental
leave. The company said that on her return to work Kerry was provided with
project work for a three-month period while she applied for alternative internal
positions.
The complaint was resolved
through conciliation with the company offering Kerry a permanent role in another
department and paying $19,000 to cover economic loss.
