- Suncorp refuses to pay
- By BIANCA BONGATO
- Contributed by: Riley_P ( 1 article in 2018 )
AHRC president Rosalind Croucher (pictured) ordered Suncorp to pay BE a total of $2,500
Human rights commission orders Suncorp to compensate paedophile after it refused to hire him because of his criminal record - but the bank refuses to pay
- Human Rights Commission ordered Suncorp to compensate sex offender
- It was found that the offender was refused employ after discovery of convictions
- The man, only known as 'BE', had applied to be an insurance claims consultant
- Suncorp was told to re-educate staff and revise policies after it refused to pay
- AHRC president Rosalind Croucher ordered Suncorp to pay him $2500
The Australian Human Rights Commission ordered Suncorp to compensate a registered sex offender - but the bank has refused to pay.
Despite the AHRC ruling a man was 'discriminated against due to his criminal record' the bank insisted the man's convictions for possessing child pornography justified the decision not to hire him.
The man, known as BE, had applied to be an insurance claims consultant at Suncorp in 2015.
While AHRC president Rosalind Croucher conceded BE did not fully disclose his criminal record, she still ordered the company to pay him a total of $2,500.
Prof Croucher said in a statement: 'Notwithstanding the very serious nature of Mr BE's convictions, I find that Suncorp's decision to deny Mr BE the opportunity to access employment with Suncorp constituted an exclusion which impaired Mr BE's equality of opportunity'.
'I accept that having a conditional offer of employment extended to him, and then rescinded on the basis of a criminal record that does not adequately relate to the inherent requirements of the role has caused ... distress'.
BE reportedly answered 'No' to a question in his online application that asked if he had been convicted of an offence.
BE's criminal record dates back to 2008, which included convictions of 'use of a carriage service to access child pornography material' and 'possession of child pornography'.
BE was sentenced to a year in jail and was suspended for two years.
Suncorp was also told to re-educate its staff, revise its policies, and review its conduct after the incident.
'We have carefully considered your findings and recommendations,' Suncorp responded in a December 2015 statement.
'In particular, we note your finding that Mr [BE] was discriminated against on the basis of his criminal record.
'We respectfully maintain that Mr [BE]'s criminal record is of a serious nature and impacts on his ability to perform the inherent requirements of the Work@Home Consultant role.
'For this reason, Suncorp declines to pay any compensation to Mr [BE].
'Notwithstanding the above, Suncorp has developed comprehensive recruitment procedures and provides on-going training to employees, including in relation to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity.
'These procedures and training assist with ensuring we can fairly assess whether a prospective employee with a criminal record can perform the inherent requirements of a particular role, on a case by case basis.'