NSW Caselaw
Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Zareski v Hannanprint Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 283 Hearing dates: 24, 25 and 26th of August 2011 Decision date: 05 December 2011 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Scahill, Judicial member E Hayes, Non-judicial member M Nasir, Non-judicial member Decision: 1. The complaint of discrimination in relation to harassment on the grounds of carers' responsibilities is dismissed. 2. The complaint of discrimination in relation to harassment on the grounds of disability is dismissed. 3. The complaint of discrimination in relation to harassment on the grounds of race concerning the graffiti on the Applicant's locker is dismissed. 4. The complaint of victimisation is substantiated in so far as Mr Dixon's comments to the Applicant in January 2011 are concerned. The balance of victimisation complaints is dismissed. 5. The Tribunal orders that the Respondent undertake training of its managers and supervisors in relation to dealing with workplace complaints. The human resources staff should attend together with the managers and supervisors. The Respondent is invited to present a proposal to the Tribunal setting out how it proposes to do this including the number and length of sessions and the subject matter to be dealt with for approval by the Tribunal. This proposal should be put to the Tribunal within 28 days of these orders. The Tribunal will seek the Applicant's view of this proposal. 6. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant an amount of $ 5000 in respect of the Applicant's hurt feelings as a result of the victimisation. Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Carter v. Brown [2010] NSWADT 109 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service (EOD) [2003] NSWADTAP.) Elliott v Nanda & Commonwealth (2001) 111 FCR 240 Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20 O'Callaghan v Loder (1984) EOC 92-023 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vasko Zareski (Applicant) Hannanprint Pty Ltd (Respondent) Representation: Counsel E Raper (Respondent) Bankstown Legal (Applicant) Minter Ellison (Respondent) File Number(s): 101116
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate