Naggs v State of Queensland (Department of Health) (No 2)
[2015] QIRC 26
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Naggs v State of Queensland (Department of Health) (No 2)[2015] QIRC 26
- Add to List
Naggs v State of Queensland (Department of Health) (No 2)[2015] QIRC 26
Naggs v State of Queensland (Department of Health) (No 2)[2015] QIRC 26
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Naggs v State of Queensland (Department of Health) No. 2 [2015] QIRC 026 |
PARTIES: | Naggs, Glenn (Applicant) v State of Queensland (Department of Health) (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | HP/2013/23 |
PROCEEDING: | Action on industrial dispute |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 February 2015 |
HEARING DATE: | 23 January 2015 (Respondent's Further submissions) 9 February 2015 (Applicant's Further submissions) |
MEMBER: | Industrial Commissioner Fisher |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – ACTION ON INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE – classification of position – health practitioner classification structure – further information – provision of written report to referring specialist without being verified by a radiologist – provision of counselling to patients and notice of adverse outcomes – determined appeal panel erred – not taking proper account of knowledge, skills and expertise – satisfied criterion met. |
CASES: | Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No. 1) 2007 Naggs v State of Queensland (Department of Health) [2014] QIRC 208 |
APPEARANCES: | Mr G. Butler for the Applicant. Mr K. Ryalls for the State of Queensland (Department of Health), the Respondent. |
Decision
- [1]On 9 December 2014 the Commission as constituted released a decision in relation to the dispute concerning the classification of Glenn Naggs at the Redcliffe Hospital.[1] Mr Naggs is employed as a Radiographer/Sonographer and disputes the classification determined through the Health Practitioner evaluation process established under the Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No. 1) 2007 (HPEB1). Mr Naggs claims he should be classified at HP5 rather than the HP4 level that was ultimately determined.
- [2]In my decision I required further information to be provided by way of Affidavit from the Director of Medical Imaging Services at the Redcliffe Hospital. On receipt of that Affidavit, the Department of Health and Mr Butler, the representative of Mr Naggs, were required to provide further submissions. Those submissions have now been received. In essence, the submission from the Department of Health is that the Appeal Panel did not err in finding Mr Naggs' position classified at HP4. It referred to a series of Work Level Statements to support the contention that Mr Naggs' role does not meet the HP5 WLS for the criteria of Knowledge, skills and expertise and Accountability. In contrast, Mr Butler submitted that in light of the Affidavit from the Director of Medical Imaging Services, together with the other information already submitted to the Commission, a holistic evaluation of Mr Naggs' position would result in a classification of HP5.
Further Information
- [3]Information was sought from the Director of Medical Imaging Services at the Redcliffe Hospital, Paul Esdaile, about two issues. The first was whether, having regard to the knowledge, skills and expertise and accountabilities, Mr Naggs' position is consistent with radiographers/sonographers classified as HP4 or HP5 at the Redcliffe Hospital. The second was whether Mr Naggs is required to counsel patients and provide notice of adverse outcomes. The particular focus of the second query was to understand the classification of radiographers/sonographers at the Redcliffe Hospital who perform such duties.
- [4]Mr Esdaile deposes that all examinations performed with ultrasound are reported by radiographers/sonographers with certain exceptions that require radiologist input. Further, all experienced HP4 and HP5 radiographers/sonographers perform this reporting function. While this work falls under the Full Scope of Clinical Practice and Mr Naggs has been so credentialed since 5 October 2012, he has been providing notification of ultrasound reports at the Redcliffe Hospital since 2002. Further, the normal practice for sonographers at the Redcliffe Hospital is to discuss findings with the patient and counsel them while in the clinical room.
- [5]Notwithstanding the information provided by Mr Esdaile that all experienced HP4 and HP5 radiographers/sonographers perform the reporting function, he nonetheless was of the opinion that Mr Naggs should properly be classified as HP5. He set out a number of reasons for arriving at the view, the most salient of which were that Mr Naggs has a specialist level of expertise such that he does not require supervision for complex cases in either x-ray or ultrasound; provides specialist clinical advice to radiographers/sonographers for complex cases e.g. renal transplant and advanced liver disease and advises registrars and consultants from other departments in ultrasound imaging techniques. The Commission accepts the submissions of Mr Butler that the evidence of Mr Naggs and the information provided by Mr Esdaile are consistent in these and other respects.
Consideration and Findings
- [6]In making this decision I have had regard to the transcript, exhibits and submissions that were made in respect of the hearing of this matter as well as the supplementary information that was provided pursuant to the Directions issued on 9 December 2014.
- [7]The decision the Commission is required to make is whether the Appeal Panel erred in finding that the appropriate classification for Mr Naggs was HP4. In my decision of 9 December 2014, I found that the Appeal Panel had accepted Mr Naggs' claim for the advanced level HP5 for the criterion of Scope and nature of the level.[2] My concern was whether the Appeal Panel had erred in respect of its consideration of the two other criteria, viz., Knowledge, skills and expertise and Accountability. Because some uncertainty existed the further information from Mr Esdaile was sought.
- [8]The information from Mr Esdaile that all sonographers discuss the findings and provide counselling to patients does not assist Mr Naggs' case that his classification is properly HP5. Neither does the advice that all experienced HP4 and HP5 radiographers/sonographers (except for new graduates) provide reports to treating specialists. The Commission is thus left with the evidence as it was at the time of the decision, together with Mr Esdaile's reasons that Mr Naggs should be classified at HP5.
- [9]The appeal submission submitted by Mr Naggs is not without its difficulties in supporting his claims for HP5. He did not provide adequate justification and/or supporting documentation for some of the HP5 WLS he claimed. The Department also submits that many of the duties set out by Mr Eisdale for supporting his view that the proper classification for Mr Naggs is HP5, are more properly aligned to HP4 WLS.
- [10]However, after careful consideration of all of the information before me, I have concluded that the Appeal Panel erred in not taking proper account of Mr Naggs' level of knowledge, skills and expertise. Mr Naggs attached to his appeal submission references from medical staff attesting to his knowledge, skill and expertise in complex and difficult cases and the reliance by medical staff on those capabilities. The Affidavit of Mr Esdaile confirms Mr Naggs' specialist expertise in complex x-ray and ultrasound cases and that the level of his knowledge, skills and expertise across two clinical specialties is at HP5.
- [11]I noted in the earlier decision that Mr Naggs claimed the advanced level for the criterion of Knowledge, skills and expertise, however, the advanced and specialist levels are alternatives. In my view the appropriate conclusion to be reached in relation to the second criterion of Knowledge, skills and expertise is that Mr Naggs' role is HP5.
- [12]Mr Naggs has some difficulty in comfortably satisfying the third criterion of Accountability. However, I am satisfied on reviewing his appeal submission, including the supporting material, that the Appeal Panel failed to give appropriate consideration to his claims (which were subsequently supported by Mr Esdaile's Affidavit) particularly in relation to WLS 5-32 and 5-33.
- [13]For these reasons I have reached the view that Mr Naggs should be classified at HP5. Accordingly, the decision of the Director-General is set aside and the Commission substitutes a new decision that Mr Naggs be classified at HP5.
- [14]The operative date of the classification is 30 October 2012, the date the Notice of Industrial Dispute was filed.