Complaint about Winz staff
THE Human Rights Commission is considering a complaint made against the North Otago Work and Income office.
An Oamaru woman says it was unacceptable she was not allowed into the office with her assistance dog, but Winz says the reason she was not allowed in was her aggressive behaviour, not the dog.
Gina Tatom made the complaint to the commission after she was refused entry to the office on May 24.
On that day, Ms Tatom went to find out if she could source financial assistance to pay for the upkeep of her disability assistance dog, Chipper, but she and the dog were refused entry to the office.
She said Chipper’s uniform sported the logo of the Assistance Dogs New Zealand Trust, the dog’s passport was available, and he was wearing an identification tag.
A dispute between Ms Tatom and a guard began because she was denied entry to the office because she had a dog with her.
It ended with Work and Income staff accepting Chipper’s standing and confirmation was found in his pass port.
Ms Tatom left to get some paperwork and returned in the afternoon, only to be stopped from entering the building again as a new guard was on the door. Another dispute began. Ms Tatom returned to the office the next day, only to be denied entry again, she said. Another argument ensued.
Ministry of Social Development spokeswoman Sue Rissman said on the first day Ms Tatom and Chipper turned up the dog did not appear to be an assistance dog. Staff had not seen it before, so they asked to see its passport.
Ms Tatom was seen while Assistance Dogs New Zealand was contacted.
‘‘They advised that owners should be aware that it is their responsibility to produce the passport when asked.’’
The passport was confirmed later in the day.
‘‘When she returned a second time, the new guard on duty also asked for the dog’s passport. She reacted angrily and was confrontational.
‘‘On reflection, we probably applied the rule too rigidly. No offence was intended. However, had she shown a passport when asked she would have been seen without any issue.’’
When Ms Tatom returned on May 25 with her dog, she was again ‘‘confrontational and aggressive’’, Ms Rissman said.
‘‘The dog was in no way the reason why she was not seen. Her behaviour was not reasonable and was unacceptable.
‘‘We try to help clients in any way we can, especially those with a disability.’’
Ms Tatom denied being aggressive or confrontational, but acknowledged she became agitated after she was made to feel her disability was not real.
She has a brain injury brought on by trauma experienced several years ago.
She called for Work and Income staff to be educated about assistance dogs.
A Human Rights Commission spokeswoman said the complaint was being assessed within the commission’s confidential mediation process.
shannon.gillies@odt.co.nz