Conciliation Register

The complainant was placed with the respondent food services and utilities management company by a labour-hire company. She claimed she was encouraged to apply for permanent employment with the company but her application was unsuccessful and she was banned from the premises because of her criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of traffic infringements, trespassing and providing misleading information. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company re-consider the complainant’s application and review its anti-discrimination policies with a focus on legislation regarding criminal record discrimination. The complainant’s application was successful and she commenced employment with company.  

The complainant alleged that the respondent software business terminated his employment in a sales role three weeks after recruiting him because of his criminal record. The complainant said he had left his employment with another employer to take up the position with the business. The complainant was charged with, but not convicted of, assault and domestic violence related offences six years earlier.  

The software business said that its decision to terminate the complainant's employment was based on a legitimate contractual right to terminate employment if an employee did not return a satisfactory criminal record check. The business agreed to participate in conciliation to try to resolve the complaint.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the business pay the complainant approximately $8,500. 

The complainant alleged that an offer of employment as a support worker in a community organisation was revoked by senior management because of her criminal record. She said she disclosed her criminal record during the recruitment process. The complainant had been convicted of minor theft and fraud offences approximately nine years earlier. She claimed the organisation offered her no opportunity to discuss the circumstances surrounding her criminal record before making its decision. 

The organisation claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the support worker role, which involved working without supervision in the homes of vulnerable persons and with full access to their possessions.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the organisation pay the complainant $1,500, the equivalent to six weeks’ wages. The organisation also apologised to the complainant for the distress caused by the decision to make, and then revoke, the offer of employment.

The complainant alleged that his application for employment as a senior network engineer was not successful because of his criminal record. The complainant was charged with assault in company but no conviction was recorded.

The company claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the role, as the successful applicant would have contact with vulnerable clients.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company review its anti-discrimination policies and write to the complainant acknowledging the distress he experienced.

The complainant applied for a position as a support worker with the respondent community organisation. She said the organisation withdrew an offer of casual employment once aware of her criminal record.The complainant had been convicted of common assault on three occasions with the most recent conviction occurring eight years earlier. 

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

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the community organisation employ the complainant as a support worker.

 

The complainant alleged that his application for employment as a senior network engineer was not successful because of his criminal record. The complainant was charged with assault in company but no conviction was recorded.

The company claimed the complainant’s criminal record was inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the role, as the successful applicant would have contact with vulnerable clients.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the company review its anti-discrimination policies and write to the complainant acknowledging the distress he experienced.

The complainant alleged that the respondent public transport provider withdrew an offer of employment in a managerial role because of his criminal record. The complainant had previously been convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and contravening a protection order. 

The transport provider claimed that its decision to withdraw the offer of employment was based on its legislative obligations. The transport provider claimed there were inconsistencies between police evidence and the complainant’s explanation of the circumstances surrounding his convictions.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the transport provider pay the complainant $2,250, less applicable tax. The transport provider assured the complainant that any future applications would be considered and assessed on the basis of merit and suitability for the role.

The complainant alleged that the respondent bank terminated his employment as a customer service officer in his second week of employment because of his criminal record. The complainant said he had not been convicted of fraud or theft offences and had been honest about his criminal record. He said he had undertaken drug dependence rehabilitation since his conviction and was fit to perform the role.

The bank said it was not fully aware of the nature of the complainant’s criminal record until after he commenced his employment. The bank noted the complainant had been convicted of a range of offences, including break and enter and contravention of an apprehended violence order, four years before he applied for the role. The bank said the complainant’s role included accessing sensitive customer information and identity details. The bank said it offered the complainant the opportunity to discuss his criminal record but, due to the serious nature of the offences, the short period of time since the offences and its obligations to protect customers, the bank concluded it did not have the trust and confidence required in him to perform the inherent requirements of the role.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $5,000 and offer him the opportunity to participate in its outplacement program.

The complainant claimed the respondent labour-hire company terminated his placement and told him it could not offer him further work because of his criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of storing ammunition and cultivating cannabis plants four to five years previously. The complainant said that the labour-hire company offered him a new placement when he advised he had lodged a complaint with the Commission.

The labour-hire company denied ending the complainant’s employment. The company said the placement ended and it then offered him an alternative placement.

The complaint was resolved. The company apologised for the lack of clarity in its correspondence with the complainant regarding his criminal record and the end of his placement. The company agreed to pay the complainant approximately $360 in compensation for the cost of clothes and equipment and undertook to maintain delivery of anti-discrimination training to its staff.

The complainant alleged the respondent recruitment agency cancelled two job interviews because one of its clients became aware of his criminal record. He claimed a staff member of the agency told him the agency would no longer represent him because of his criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of possession of tainted material.

The recruitment agency advised one of its clients indicated it no longer wished to interview the complainant for a role after becoming aware of his criminal record through an internet search. The agency advised another client cancelled an interview with the complainant because it found a suitable candidate for the role.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the recruitment agency to represent the complainant for future suitable positions based on his qualifications and experience.

The complainant alleged the respondent pharmacy terminated her employment a few days after she commenced working as a pharmacy assistant because of her criminal record. She said she disclosed her criminal record during the recruitment process and wrote to the pharmacy explaining the circumstances surrounding her criminal record once a criminal record check was completed. However, she claimed the pharmacy never met with her to discuss her criminal record. The complainant had been convicted of assault, assault occasioning bodily harm and entering a property without lawful excuse.

The pharmacy claimed the complainant’s criminal record was incompatible with the inherent requirements of her role, which included delivering customer service to vulnerable customers, working with minimal supervision and providing a safe workplace, 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the pharmacy pay the complainant $700, review its recruitment process to include a narrower question inviting applicants to discuss any criminal record and write to her apologising for the distress she experienced as a result of the events giving rise to the complaint.

The complainant attended an interview with the respondent recruitment agency for a role in aged care. She claimed she was assured of ongoing paid employment and purchased a uniform on the day. The complainant alleges that, after she disclosed her criminal record, the agency stopped contacting her and ultimately told her she was unsuitable for the role. The complainant had been charged with assault with a weapon, but no conviction was recorded.

The recruitment agency claimed the complainant’s criminal record was not a factor in its decision not to offer the complainant the role and claimed other issues arose during the recruitment process which rendered the complainant unsuitable. The agency acknowledged this was not clearly communicated to the complainant. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant return the uniform and be reimbursed approximately $80 for the cost of the uniform and other costs associated with attending the interview. The agency also wrote to the complainant expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint.