Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Voussoughi v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2021] QIRC 130

Voussoughi v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2021] QIRC 130

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Voussoughi v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 130

PARTIES:

Voussoughi, Panteha

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2020/444

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Conversion to higher classification level

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2021

MEMBER:

Power IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

OUTCOME:

Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – where the appellant was reviewed under s 149C of the Public Service Act 2008 – consideration of the scope of a review under s 149C – consideration of ‘genuine operational requirement’

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 27B

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), ss 562B and 562C

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 149C

Directive 13/20 Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level, cls 4, 6 and 7

CASES:

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245

Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

Holcombe v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2020] QIRC 195

Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225

Monavvari v State of Queensland (Queensland Health, eHealth) [2020] QIRC 232

Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Ms Panteha Voussoughi (the Appellant) is permanently employed as a HP4, Pharmacist (substantive position) within Metro North Hospital and Health Service (MNHHS) by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (the Respondent).
  1. [2]
    Between the period of 24 October 2017 to 31 December 2020, the Appellant acted in a higher classification role as a HP5, Electronic Prescribing and Medication Administration (EPMA) Pharmacist Project Officer and Specialist Pharmacist within the Electronic Medication Management (EMM) team. The Appellant returned to her substantive position on 1 January 2021.
  1. [3]
    The Appellant appeals a decision by Dr Jason Brown, Acting Chief Digital Health Officer, Digital Metro North (DMN), MNHHS, dated 17 December 2020, to refuse the request made by the Appellant to be permanently appointed to the position at the higher classification level in which she had been acting.

Appeal Principles

  1. [4]
    The decision was made pursuant to s 149C of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) (the PS Act) and Directive 13/20 Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level (the Directive).
  1. [5]
    Section 562B(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (the IR Act) provides that the section applies to a public service appeal made to the Commission. Section 562B(2) provides that the Commission must decide the appeal by reviewing the decision appealed against.  Section 562B(3) provides that the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.
  1. [6]
    The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.[1] Because the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[2] An appeal under chapter 11, part 6, division 4 of the IR Act is not by way of rehearing,[3] but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decisionmaking process associated therewith.
  1. [7]
    The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[4] The issue for determination is whether the decision by Dr Brown to deny the request to appoint the Appellant at the higher classification level was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Decision to be reviewed

  1. [8]
    On 17 December 2020, Dr Brown informed the Appellant of the decision in response to her request. In doing so, Dr Brown stated:

I have determined that there is no substantive vacancy for this role and therefore I have decided not to appoint you to the higher classification level at this time.

As you are aware, the permanent roles within the EMM team were filled through an open merit recruitment process in July/August 2020. As a result, there are no ongoing roles currently available within the EMM team which have the same or substantially the same capability requirements to the role/s you have performed over the preceding years.

As a result of this decision not to convert you to the higher classification level, you will continue in the role of EPMA Pharmacy Project Officer until 31 December 2020 when you will return to your substantive role.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [9]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Industrial Commissioner may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. (b)
    set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or
  1. (c)
    set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision-maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Relevant provisions of the PS Act and the Directive

  1. [10]
    Section 149C of the PS Act provides:

149C Appointing public service employee acting in position at higher classification level

  1. (1)
    This section applies in relation to a public service employee if the employee-
  1. (a)
    is seconded to, under section 120(1)(a), or is acting at, a higher classification level in the department in which the employee holds an appointment or is employed; and
  1. (b)
    has been seconded to or acting at the higher classification level for a continuous period of at least 1 year; and
  1. (c)
    is eligible for appointment to the position at the higher classification level having regard to the merit principle.

  1. (3)
    The employee may ask the department's chief executive to appoint the employee to the position at the higher classification level as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer, after-
  1. (a)
    the end of 1 year of being seconded to or acting at the higher classification level; and
  1. (b)
    each 1-year period after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a).
  1. (4)
    The department’s chief executive must decide the request within the required period.

(4A)  In making the decision, the department’s chief executive must have regard to-

  1. (a)
    the genuine operational requirements of the department; and
  1. (b)
    the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person’s continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.
  1. (5)
    If the department’s chief executive decides to refuse the request, the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating-
  1. (a)
    reasons for the decision; and
  1. (b)
    the total continuous period for which the person has been acting at the higher classification level in the department; and
  1. (c)
    how many times the person’s engagement at the higher classification level has been extended; and
  1. (d)
    each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person’s continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.
  1. (6)
    If the department’s chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have refused the request.

  1. (8)
    In this section-

continuous period, in relation to an employee acting at a higher classification level, has the meaning given for the employee under a directive made under subsection (7).

required period, for making a decision under subsection (4), means-

  1. (a)
    the period stated in an industrial instrument within which the decision must be made; or
  1. (b)
    if paragraph (a) does not apply-28 days after the request is made.
  1. [11]
    The Directive relevantly provides:
  1. Employee may request to be appointed at the higher classification level

5.1  Section 149C of the PS Act provides that an employee seconded or engaged in higher duties may submit a written request to the chief executive to permanently appoint the employee to the higher classification level as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer.

5.2To be eligible to request consideration for appointment at the higher classification level under clause 5.1 the employee must:

  1. (a)
    have been seconded to or assuming the duties and responsibilities of the higher classification level
  1. (b)
    for a continuous period of at least one year
  1. (c)
    be eligible for appointment to the higher classification level having regard to the merit principle.

5.3  Under section 149C(3) of the PS Act, an eligible employee may request the chief executive to permanently appoint the employee to the higher classification level:

  1. (a)
    one year after being seconded to or assuming the duties and responsibilities of the higher classification level, and
  1. (b)
    each subsequent year where the employee continues their engagement at the higher classification level in the same role.

5.4  An employee may make one request for appointment in each one year period commencing on the employee becoming eligible to request under clause 5.3(a) or 5.3(b), and may make an additional request if the role becomes a substantive vacancy.

5.5  The chief executive must consider permanently appointing the employee to the higher classification level where a written request has been made under this clause.

  1. Decision making

6.1  When deciding whether to permanently appoint the employee to the higher classification level as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer, the chief executive may consider whether the employee has any performance concerns that have been put to the employee and documented and remain unresolved, that would mean that the employee is no longer eligible for appointment to the position at the higher classification level having regard to the merit principle.

6.2  In accordance with section 149C(4A) of the PS Act, when deciding the request, the chief executive must have regard to:

  1. (a)
    the genuine operational requirements of the department, and
  1. (b)
    the reasons for each decision previously made, or deemed to have been made, under section 149C of the PS Act in relation to the employee during their continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.

6.3  In accordance with section 149C(6) of the PS Act, if the chief executive does not make the decision within 28 days, the chief executive is taken to have decided that the person's engagement in the agency is to continue according to the terms of the existing secondment or higher duties arrangement.

6.4  Each agency must, upon request, give the Commission Chief Executive a report about the number of known deemed decisions occurring by operation of section 149C(6) of the PS Act.

  1. Statement of reasons

7.1  A chief executive who decides to refuse a request made under clause 5 is required to provide a written notice that meets the requirements of section 149C(5) of the PS Act (Appendix A). The notice provided to the employee must, in accordance with section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954:

  1. (a)
    set out the findings on material questions of fact, and
  1. (b)
    refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.

7.2  A written notice is not required to be prepared 'after the fact' to support a deemed decision made under clause 6.3.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [12]
    The Appellant outlined the following grounds of appeal, in summary:
  • the Appellant's request to be appointed to the higher classification level was supported by the Appellant's line manager;
  • the decision not to appoint the Appellant is based on the view that there is no substantive vacancy as an open recruitment process in July 2020 fulfilled these roles and thus there is no further requirement for ongoing roles within the EMM team; and
  • there is evidence for both current ongoing operational need and additional growth for EMM Specialist Pharmacists at DMN due to:
  1. (a)
    MNHHS undergoing a digital transformation that will require experienced clinical informaticians to support and implement the MN32 strategic direction from 2020-2032;
  1. (b)
    STARS, the first MNHHS fully digital hospital is due to open in the first quarter of 2021, and the STARS Digital Business As Usual (BAU) Support Model identified an additional HP5 EMM Specialist Pharmacist would be required to maintain the additional medication software and hardware at STARS;
  1. (c)
    all MNHHS facilities will be digitally enabled over the coming years and project staff will be required to begin preparedness even prior to full Queensland government funding commitment; and
  1. (d)
    additional BAU staff will need to be funded to advance the key focus areas, being clinical models, workforce, infrastructure, research and innovation.

Submissions

  1. [13]
    The Commission issued a Directions Order calling for submissions following receipt of the appeal notice. 

Respondent's submissions

  1. [14]
    The Respondent filed the following submissions. In summary:
  • the EPMA Pharmacist Project Officer role was funded on a temporary basis as part of the implementation of the MedChart and Pyxis platforms project with a project expiry date of 3 December 2020;
  • financial delegation was obtained to set up three permanent EMM support team pharmacist roles to carry out business as usual functions post the EMM project. These roles were filled through an open merit process;
  • in July 2020, the Appellant participated in the recruitment process for the Specialist Pharmacist position, which was one of the new, post-project, permanent roles, however, was unsuccessful;
  • the core skillset required in the Specialist Pharmacist role that the Appellant was not meritorious for, is to deliver safe and efficient patient care through clinical informatics platforms. This permanent and ongoing role required different skills and experience to that required in the project role;
  • the Specialist Pharmacist role was advertised as primarily a clinical informatics role rather than a technical role, and the purpose of the role was described in the Role Description:

The purpose of the Specialist Pharmacist EMM role is to utilise their advanced level of knowledge, skills and experience to provide clinical leadership and direction to ensure ongoing  clinical safety, continuity, useability and continual service improvement in relation to the to the EMM systems deployed by Metro North Hospital and Health Service.

  • the Appellant was provided feedback on her application for the Specialist Pharmacist role regarding the nature of the role being primarily a clinical informatics role and not a technical role. Technical understanding and expertise in a specific application were clearly desirable skills but not the core skillset required to deliver safe and efficient patient care through clinical informatics platforms;
  • the essential functions of the Specialist Pharmacist role require ongoing refinement of clinical informatics workflows and clinical governance to ensure that the platform continues to deliver safe and efficient patient care. This essential function is not a technical role as was the EPMA Pharmacist Project Officer role. This was a fundamental consideration in assessing the suitability of applicants for the Specialist Pharmacist role;
  • the Respondent submits that the Appellant meets clause 5.2 of the Directive;
  • the Respondent submits that that genuine operational reason exists and the decision to decline the Appellant's request is valid as there was no substantive vacancy for the role in which the Appellant seeks appointment;[5]
  • the Appellant's request was not supported by her line manager, Mr Bobi Damevski, Director Digital Services;
  • the EPMA Pharmacist Project Officer role is no longer required as this was not a permanently required/funded position;
  • EMM positions were funded on a temporary basis as part of the implementation of the MedChart and Pyxis platforms with contracts set to expire on 31 December 2020;
  • financial delegation was obtained to set up three permanent EMM support team pharmacist roles to carry out BAU functions post the project, however, these roles required a new direction and functions as described in the advertised Role Description. These roles were filled through an open merit recruitment process in July/August 2020, and the Appellant was not the meritorious applicant;
  • as a result, there are no ongoing roles currently available within the EMM team which have the same or substantially the same capability requirements to the role(s) the Appellant has performed over the preceding years;
  • the decision not to appoint the Appellant was based on continuing staff needs at the time. Specifically, there is no continuing need to perform the duties of the higher duties role because of the fact that the project has concluded and there are three permanent EMM support team pharmacist roles for the new function;
  • any perceived need for more EMM support created by STARS is negated by the recent decommissioning of the MedChart application at Caboolture. This previously formed part of the responsibilities of the EMM team and consequently, the work demand has significantly decreased;
  • there has been no commitment around digital transformation from the Respondent and it is expected that if there were a commitment it would not occur for another 12 to 18 months due to the budgetary impacts of COVID-19;
  • the Respondent submits that, in applying Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) (Morison),[6] the Appellant's submissions describe the potential for ongoing need or growth, however, does not support a current need. The creation of an additional position at this time would not align with the responsibility to manage public resources effectively;
  • MNHHS objects to the request to set aside the decision and substitute it with a decision to appoint the Appellant into the higher classification due to:
  1. (a)
    the EPMA Pharmacist Project Officer position no longer existing;
  1. (b)
    the permanent EMM Specialist Pharmacist position no longer vacant; and
  1. (c)
    there are no genuine operational requirements for another position at this classification;
  • MNHHS aims to ensure secondment to or assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level is available to all employees wishing to advance their skills, knowledge and abilities, however, permanent appointment to the role is not always viable or appropriate, particularly in a project-based role with a known end date;
  • MNHHS maintains the accurate application of the criteria and the decision of the Appellant's request is in line with the intention of the Directive;
  • if the decision of the Commissioner was to appoint the Appellant to a position that no longer exists, would cause significant financial impact on MNHSS during a time in which the effective management of public resources is of particular importance. Such a decision would place the Appellant in a role that is not supported by ongoing work demand; and
  • if the Appellant were appointed to a role that no longer exists or a permanent EMM Specialist Pharmacist role, would create a surplus to the requirements of MNHSS and would be without the work demand to support this.

Appellant's Submissions in reply

  1. [15]
    The Appellant filed the following submissions in response to the Respondent's submissions. In summary:
  • the Appellant was initially recruited into the position of EPMA Pharmacist Project Officer in October 2017, however, when the project ended, the Appellant transitioned into a BAU support role on 1 July 2019 which has now been named EMM Specialist Pharmacist. The project finished at the end of June 2019 not 31 December 2020;
  • the roles were not new roles but a continuation of the role and function that was already carried out by the Appellant and other colleagues following systems/applications go-live in 2018;
  • the EMM support pharmacist function has always been about delivering safe and efficient patient care through clinical platforms. The response from Dr Brown suggesting that the Appellant did not have those skills was made without speaking with any of the EMM line managers, stakeholders who had EMM systems implemented within their hospital or the Appellant's previous manager. Neither Dr Brown nor Dr Fahim have ever worked with the Appellant or on the EMM Support Team. The Appellant further submits that she is meritorious as she fulfills the suitability criteria of Queensland Health temporary to permanent conversion;
  • the Appellant submits that the case of Monavvari v State of Queensland (Queensland Health, eHealth),[7] regards temporary conversion where an employee's role was to backfill a position rather than an appointment to higher duties, however, the Temporary Employment Directive 08/17 FAQs states '[t]he test for whether there is an ongoing role is not whether or not there is a substantive vacancy' and '[t]o conclude there was no ongoing role for the temporary employee and that they could not be converted to permanent was inconsistent with the historical circumstances';
  • the recruitment process from the EMM Specialist Pharmacist position is still under review and the two people recruited to these roles have still not yet commenced the roles as they are continuing on other project roles and will commence in April 2021;
  • the Appellant submits that clauses 9.6 and 9.7 of the Directive 08/17 Temporary Employment (Directive 08/17), which was operative at the time of recruitment, were not followed. Additionally, the Appellant submits that where the Commission finds that there were failures in the recruitment process, then the positions will be vacant and as the Appellant has been acting in the position for more than three years, would fulfil the Directive criteria to being permanently appointed to this role given the Appellant's experience and good performance outlined by both EMM Managers and stakeholders of the service;
  • the EMM role will require an uplift as there will be an expansion to implementation of Pyxis from 26 to 100 within the next year, requiring greater EMM support resources and there will be expansion into data analytics in which the Appellant has experience in within EMM to improve patient safety;
  • the Appellant submits that she is supported by both past and present EMM Managers and Director of Digital Services and that Mr Damevski was EMM line manager for financial delegation and was not involved in the running and recruiting of EMM;
  • the Appellant submits that Mr Damevski provided verbal support in a number of occasions for the Appellant to be made permanent;
  • the EPMA Pharmacist Project role transitioned into the EMM Specialist role, thus were not new roles but an extension of the old role;
  • MedChart has been decommissioned, however, expansion of additional Pyxis machines across MNHHS in February 2021 will result in a fourfold increase in the number of Pyxis requiring 24/7 support provided by EMM Support Team. The Appellant submits that she has also gained proficiency with integrates electronic medication record, which is planned to be rolled out throughout MNHHS and is a planned scope expansion for the EMM Support Team;
  • the Appellant submits that if there was no commitment to digitalisation then there would be a different message being given to all of MNHHS staff including those of DMN. On the DMN intranet webpage as quoted by Dr Brown:

Digital transformation is critical for Metro North’s future. Digital Metro North will transform our health service through the integration of digital technology in our hospital and health service.

  • the Appellant submits that if there was no current need for digitalisation then there would be no reason to permanently appoint Clinical Digital Directors that have been acting in these positions for less than two years and Directive 09/20 Fixed-Term Temporary Employment (Directive 9/20) would not be enforceable. These Directors, as a collective, earn approximately $2 million and DMN could save a significant amount if they did not require Clinical Digital Directors and had no plans for digitalisation. The Appellant submits that there seems to be different rules and assessments for 'ongoing need', depending on whether one is a DMN Director or DMN employee;
  • the Appellant refers to Katae v State of Queensland & Anor (Katae),[8] and the Public Service Commission FAQ about Directive 08/17 where it states that '[t]he test for whether there is an ongoing role is not whether or not there is a substantive vacancy' and '[t]o conclude there was no ongoing role for the temporary employee and that they could not be converted to permanent was inconsistent with the historical circumstances' apply to the EMM role which the Appellant was continued on long after the project ceased and those positions have been and continue to be funded as EMM support is an ongoing role;
  • the Appellant submits that Morison is irrelevant to this matter as the Public Service Commission FAQ states that:

Funding is a factor that should be considered when determining whether there is an ongoing role for an employee. Funding should not be considered in isolation from other factors, as funding alone may not determine whether there is an ongoing role.

  • the Appellant submits that her permanent/substantive role is within MNHHS and her wages would be part of the whole MNHHS budget, irrespective of which Department employs the Appellant. Further, due to Directive 09/20, the person who was acting in the Appellant's substantive role for the last three years has also been made permanent, thus if the argument is about surplus, then the Appellant would be surplus whether she was at DMN or in the substantive position; and
  • the Appellant submits that she fulfills the requirements of the Directive that there is enough work in the EMM team due to the digitalisation of all MNHHS facilities who require digitally skilled clinical workforce as stated in a number of MNHHS strategies. The claimed budgetary constraints are not in line with BCFC documentation and permanency of DMN Directors.

Consideration

  1. [16]
    To determine the outcome of this appeal, I am required to assess whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. 
  1. [17]
    The decision-maker determined that the Appellant's request to be appointed at the higher classification level was to be declined.
  1. [18]
    The PS Act requires that in making a decision, the decision-maker must have regard to the following under s 149C(4A):
  1. (a)
    the genuine operational requirements of the department; and
  2. (b)
    the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.
  1. [19]
    The relevant Directive, as stated above, is Directive 13/20 – Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level. The Appellant's reference to Directive 08/17 and the consideration of this Directive in Katae are relevant to appeals relating to fixed-term temporary employment rather than higher classification appointments.

Genuine operational requirements of the Department

  1. [20]
    As outlined by Deputy President Merrell in Morison,[9] the phrase '… genuine operational requirements of the department' in s 149C(4A)(a) of the PS Act and in clause 6.2(a) of the Directive, construed in context, would at least include consideration of the following:

… whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department, to appoint an employee, who has been assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level in the department for the requisite period of time, to '…the position at the higher classification level.'[10]

  1. [21]
    The Appellant's higher classification level role was originally an EPMA Pharmacist Project Officer and then an EMM Specialist Pharmacist. These temporary roles were established for the EMM project and transition to BAU that had a known end date. This is consistent with circumstances contemplated in clause 4.2 of the Directive that would support the temporary engagement of an employee at a higher classification level.
  1. [22]
    The Respondent conducted a recruitment process to employ three permanent EMM support team pharmacist roles. The occupants of these roles were selected through an open merit process to fill the post-project permanent roles. The Appellant participated in the recruitment process, however, was not successful.
  1. [23]
    I note the Appellant's submissions with respect to the Respondent's stated commitment to digitalisation and the integration of digital technology in the hospital and health service. This may well result in the need for employees with the Appellant's skills in the future, however, I accept as reasonable the Respondent's determination that their operational requirements at present are best served by the appointment of the three new permanent appointments without the need for an additional employee at this level.
  1. [24]
    I note the Appellant's submissions with respect to perceived failures in the recruitment process. Concerns regarding the recruitment and selection process with respect to permanent roles formed the basis of a separate appeal, with consideration of this matter relating solely to the provisions within s 149C of the PS Act.
  1. [25]
    Based on the above facts, I accept that a genuine operational requirement exists in that the Respondent will not require an EMM Specialist Pharmacist in addition to the three permanent appointments recently made. This is consistent with the obligation to have regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the Respondent. Consequently, it was reasonable for the decision-maker to conclude that there is no genuine operational requirement for the Respondent to permanently appoint the Appellant to the higher classification position.
  1. [26]
    I note that there is no dispute that the Appellant satisfies the merit principle as per s 149C(1)(c) of the PS Act.

Previous reasons for acting at a higher classification level

  1. [27]
    Section 149C(4A)(b) of the PS Act and clause 6.2(b) of the Directive provides that the Respondent must have regard to the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under s 149C of the PS Act in relation to the person during the person's continuous period at the higher classification level.
  1. [28]
    The Respondent is not required to demonstrate compliance with s 149C(4A)(b) as no previous decisions were made under s 149C of the PS Act.

Compliance with requirements of s 149C of the PS Act

  1. [29]
    The Respondent confirmed in submissions that the Appellant was employed in the higher classification position from 24 October 2017 to 31 December 2020. I note that this information along with the number of times the Appellant's engagement was extended was not included in the decision. This omission is not ideal, however I do not consider that it materially affected the outcome of the decision or this appeal.
  1. [30]
    Clause 7 of the Directive requires that the notice provided pursuant to s 149C(5) must be in accordance with s 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). I am satisfied that the reasons provided in the notice gave a sufficiently clear explanation as to the reasons for the decision. 
  1. [31]
    In consideration of the material before me and the submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that the decision made by the Respondent was fair and reasonable.

Order

  1. [32]
    I make the following order:

Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] IR Act s 562B(2).

[2] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261.

[3] Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the PS Act.

[4] IR Act s 562B(3).

[5] citing Monavvari v State of Queensland (Queensland Health, eHealth) [2020] QIRC 232 at [53].

[6] [2020] QIRC 203.

[7] [2020] QIRC 232.

[8] [2018] QSC 225.

[9] [2020] QIRC 203.

[10] Ibid [40].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Voussoughi v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Voussoughi v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 130

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Power IC

  • Date:

    21 Apr 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.