METHODS

7.1 As explained in Chapter 6, the EOT made available to the ADB a list of parties to cases finalised at the Tribunal in the year to 30 June 1995. To each of the 58 Respondents on this list the ADB forwarded a copy of a questionnaire which had been prepared for this purpose (questionnaire R2 - see Appendix E).

RESPONSE RATE

7.2 Replies were received from 26 of these "EOT Respondents" - a response rate of 45%. Seven of the 26 EOT Respondents were individuals against whom (or against whose business) a complaint had been made; ten were representatives of a government organisation; seven were representatives of a private company; and two were representatives of some other kind of organisation or institution.

RESPONDENTS' EXPERIENCE AND OPINIONS RELATING TO THE ADB

General statements about the ADB

7.3 These Respondents' reactions to a set of statements about the ADB's handling of the complaint are set out in Table 7.1. In summary:

• 50% agreed that the complaint had been handled fairly by the Board.
• 34% agreed that the Board had been biased against them, though 31% disagreed and 35% were not sure or failed to answer.
• 85% said that ADB staff had been generally courteous and helpful.
• Only 39% said that the Board had kept them clearly informed about what was happening.
• 61% said it had taken the ADB too long to deal with the matter.
• 35% had found the Board's procedures quite difficult to follow.
• 43% agreed that the ADB should have contacted them sooner about the matter.

7.4 Overall, these Respondents' assessments of the ADB's handling of the complaint tended to be somewhat more negative than those of the larger group of Respondents reported on in Chapter 4.

Table 7.1: EOT Respondents' views on the ADB

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Not Sure/ No Response	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
The complaint against me/our organisation was handled fairly by the Anti-Discrimination Board	4%	46%	12%	23%	15%
It took too long for the Board to deal with this matter	46%	15%	8%	27%	4%
The staff whom I (we) dealt with at the Board were generally courteous and helpful	8%	77%	8%	8%	-
I (we) found the procedures at the Board quite difficult to follow	4%	31%	15%	50%	-
I felt that the Board was biased against me/our organisation	15%	19%	35%	27%	4%
The Board kept me/us clearly informed about what was happening with this complaint	-	39%	19%	31%	12%
The Anti-Discrimination Board should have contacted us sooner about this matter	12%	31%	12%	42%	4%

[Link to text only version of table]

Conciliation conferences

7.5 Twenty of the 26 EOT Respondents (77%) reported attending an ADB conciliation conference; seven had had a lawyer present. Nineteen of the twenty said that the purpose of the conference had been explained clearly.

7.6 Three-quarters of those who had attended a conference believed they had had a reasonable chance to say what they wanted to say. Eighty-five per cent said they had clearly understood what was happening during the conference. Only 45%, however, agreed that the conference had helped to clarify the issues between the parties. Thirty-five per cent indicated that they had felt pressured by the conciliator to agree to a settlement.

7.7 Only one quarter of these Respondents said that the conciliation conference had given them a better idea of how anti-discrimination laws related to the matter in question. Only three out of the 20 (15%) said that the conference had helped them make decisions about how to deal with the matter.

EXPERIENCE AND OPINIONS RELATING TO THE EOT

7.8 Five of these Respondents failed to answer any of the specific questions relating to the EOT. One explained that the Complainant had died before the Tribunal could deal with the case. Another commented generally that he had regarded the whole case as unfair and misconceived, since he was complained about by an employee with a disability, whom he believed he had gone to considerable lengths to assist. The other three gave no explanation for not answering questions about the EOT.

Legal representation

7.9 Eighteen of the EOT Respondents said that they had been represented by a lawyer in proceedings at the EOT. Two who said that they had not been legally represented did not think it would have been better to have a lawyer. One Respondent was not sure whether there had been legal representation at the EOT or not.

How the matter was finalised

7.10 Ten of these Respondents said that the matter had been finalised by the Tribunal hearing the matter and handing down a decision. One said the complaint had been dismissed without a formal hearing, and two that the other party had withdrawn. Seven said a settlement had been reached between the parties. One said that the matter had been "withdrawn by both parties". The remaining five Respondents were those who answered none of the EOT questions.

7.11 When asked to characterise the final outcome in terms of success or otherwise, six Respondents described themselves as the successful party, four said that the Complainant was successful, and four that there was a compromise. Seven described unclear or other outcomes while five, as earlier explained, did not answer any questions about the EOT. In summary, more Respondents reported winning than reported losing, but overall they reported less success than the EOT Complainants (see paragraph 6.15).

Views about aspects of the EOT process

7.12 The 21 Respondents who gave responses to a series of statements about the EOT (see Table 7.2) tended to be rather negative in their assessments. For example:

• 14 of the 21 denied the EOT had kept them clearly informed about what was happening;
• 16 of the 21 said it cost them a lot of money to go to the EOT;
• only seven agreed that the matter was handled fairly by the EOT;
• 14 said the EOT took too long to deal with the matter; and
• only two agreed that it had been worthwhile from their viewpoint for the case to go to the EOT.

7.13 On the issue of the $40,000 EOT damages limit, only two Respondents agreed with the proposition that this was too low.

Table 7.2: Respondents' views on the EOT

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Not Sure/ No Response	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
The process at the Equal Opportunity Tribunal was simple and easy to understand	-	35%	31%	19%	15%
From the time this complaint went to the Tribunal until it was finalised, the staff of the Tribunal kept me (us) clearly informed about what was happening	-	19%	27%	31%	23%
It cost me (us) a lot of money to go to the Tribunal	42%	19%	19%	19%	-
The Tribunal provided opportunities for this matter to be settled without going to a full hearing	4%	23%	38%	15%	19%
This complaint was handled fairly by the Equal Opportunity Tribunal	8%	19%	35%	12%	27%
The $40,000 limit on damages at the Tribunal is too low	-	8%	31%	19%	42%
It took too long for this matter to be dealt with at the Tribunal	35%	19%	27%	12%	8%
It was worthwhile from my/our point of view that this matter went to the Tribunal	-	8%	23%	35%	35%

[Link to text only version of table]

Percentages are of all 26 Respondents, although 5 of the 26 answered none of the questions about the EOT.

Satisfaction with the final outcome

7.14 Eight of these Respondents were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with the final outcome, while twelve described themselves as dissatisfied - a contrast with the EOT Complainants, 63% of whom were satisfied (see paragraphs 6.17-6.18).

7.15 Reasons for Respondent dissatisfaction included:

• Perceived bias in favour of the Complainant.
• It had cost the Complainant nothing to force the Respondent to incur considerable expense in dealing with the matter; "no penalty ... for lodging a false claim".
• One Complainant had been "constantly allowed" to alter her claims and allegations over the course of the matter; the EOT had allowed another Complainant's solicitor "undue flexibility and freedom as to procedures and documents".
• Even though the EOT had found in the Respondent's favour, such a "frivolous and vexatious" complaint should not have been allowed to proceed so far - and at great expense.
• The EOT was "the most unprofessional" forum which one Respondent had ever encountered.
• High cost of legal representation.

Changes made by Respondents as a result of ADB/EOT proceedings

7.16 When asked whether they or their organisation had made any changes as a result of this complaint or others pursued through the ADB or EOT, nine of the Respondents said no and a further seven made no reply. The remaining ten reported changes relating to procedures, documentation, staffing (eg the appointment of an anti-discrimination officer) or staff training. One said that "the standards of our organisation" had been reviewed to ensure that all staff recruited would clearly be physically fit for their duties.

7.17 Of the ten Respondents who indicated that changes had been made, seven were representatives of public sector organisations or institutions, two were representatives of private sector organisations, and one was the representative of a co-operative.

OTHER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Suggested changes relating to the Anti-Discrimination Board

7.18 Suggestions or comments made by these Respondents in relation to the ADB included the following:

• ADB processes are too slow; some Complainants are allowed to delay unreasonably.
• More staff are required.
• Some staff attitudes or demeanour (including those of staff based outside Sydney) need to be improved.
• "Some security for parties where a threat of violence has been made".
• Should be less bias in favour of Complainants - for example, perceived procedural unfairness in relation to documents available at the conciliation conference.
• Should be some penalty or disincentive in relation to false or insubstantial claims; the ADB should make some effort to investigate a Complainant's statements.
• The ADB should be abolished.

Suggested changes relating to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal

7.19 Comments or suggestions made in relation to the EOT included the following:

• Appearance of bias in favour of the Complainant; Complainant's statements too readily accepted.
• Delays.
• "Too much like a kangaroo court", legal representatives allowed too much licence, "legal protocol" not enforced.
• The Tribunal is slow and inefficient.
• The Tribunal should be abolished.

Other comments

7.20 Sixteen of the Respondents offered further comments at the end of the questionnaire. The issues which they raised included the following:

• Delays.
• Self-interest said to lead both the ADB and the EOT to "make issues out of nothing"; "These tribunals are a complete waste of time and public money".
• Neither the ADB nor the EOT critically investigates the Complainant's allegations; ADB staff are unduly supportive of the Complainant (even to the extent, it was claimed, of behaving in a racist manner to one Respondent representative).
• "A no-win situation" for an employer faced with an unscrupulous Complainant; the EOT should recognise the cost and difficulty caused to an innocent Respondent.
• Complainants have too much freedom to vary their claims or complaints as the process goes on.
• If the Complainant succeeds neither at the ADB nor at the EOT, he or she should be "ordered to pay all costs".
• Useful assistance received from the ADB in training staff.

SUMMARY

• Replies were received from 26 of the 58 Respondents covered by this survey - a response rate of 45%.
• As a group these Respondents tended to be more negative in their views of the ADB than the larger group of Respondents reported on in Chapter 4. One in three regarded the ADB as having been biased against them, although half agreed that the matter had been handled fairly by the ADB.
• These Respondents' views of ADB conciliation conferences (which 20 of them had attended) were generally positive. Few, however, agreed that the conference had given them a clearer idea of how the anti-discrimination laws related to the matter, or had helped them make decisions about how to proceed.
• Only 21 of these Respondents answered a set of questions about the EOT. Of these, 18 said they had been legally represented at the Tribunal; two who reported being unrepresented did not regret this.
• Only ten said that the matter had been finalised by way of a Tribunal hearing and decision.
• Six of these Respondents described themselves as the successful party, four said the other party had been successful, and four reported a compromise.
• Those who responded to a series of statements about the EOT generally expressed rather negative reactions. For example, only seven out of 21 agreed that the EOT had handled the matter fairly; 14 said the EOT took too long to deal with the matter; 16 said it had cost them a lost of money for the case to go to the Tribunal; and 14 denied that the EOT had kept them clearly informed about what was happening.
• Of 20 Respondents who expressed a reaction to the final outcome of the complaint, eight were satisfied and 12 dissatisfied. Respondents were less satisfied than the EOT Complainants reported on in Chapter 6. Some of the successful Respondents expressed dissatisfaction on the basis, for example, that the complaint was unfounded or trivial and should not have been allowed to proceed so far.
• Ten Respondents reported having made changes relating to procedures, documentation, staffing or staff training as a result of this or other discrimination complaints.
• General comments made by these Respondents about the ADB included comments on delay and under-resourcing, perceived bias in favour of Complainants, and allowing the Complainant too much licence to pursue a claim that might be unreasonable or untrue.
• Some Respondents criticised what they saw as inefficiency or loose procedures at the EOT, while others criticised what they perceived as bias in favour of the Complainant.
• General comments made at the end of this questionnaire again included the view that the ADB and/or the EOT should more critically assess or investigate the complainant's claims and should prevent trivial or ill-founded claims proceeding. One Respondent referred to the so-called "no-win" situation of an employer facing a complaint by an unscrupulous employee.