Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. Goddard v Legal Aid Queensland - [2021] QIRC 154

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

Goddard v Legal Aid Queensland[2021] QIRC 154

Goddard v Legal Aid Queensland[2021] QIRC 154

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Goddard v Legal Aid Queensland [2021] QIRC 154

PARTIES: 

Goddard, Shelby

(Appellant)

v

Legal Aid Queensland

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

TD/2019/88

PROCEEDING:

Application for reinstatement

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2021

HEARING DATE:

16, 17, 18, 20 November 2020

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Pidgeon IC

Yeppoon

ORDER:

 

The application is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – where the applicant is on a performance improvement plan – whether the applicant has performed her duties  carelessly, incompetently or inefficiently – whether the applicant has contravened without a reasonable excuse a standard of conduct applying to the employee under an approved code of conduct – whether termination was harsh unjust or unreasonable

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 316, s 317, s 320

Public Service 2008 (Qld), s 187

Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service

CASES

Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 032.

Dr Lucy Zhao v The University of Technology Sydney [2020] FWC 416.

Gold Coast District Health Service v Walker (2001) 168 QGIG 258

Laegal v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2018] QIRC 136

APPEARANCES:

Ms S Goddard as self-represented Applicant.

Ms J Marr of Counsel instructed by Crown Law for the Respondent.

Decision

  1. [1]
    Ms Shelby Goddard (the Applicant) was employed as a Litigation Support Officer (LSO) by the Respondent, Legal Aid Queensland (LAQ).  During the time Ms Goddard worked for Legal Aid Queensland, she was situated in the Rockhampton Office.
  1. [2]
    Ms Goddard commenced employment on 15 April 2015 on a temporary basis.  From 9 February 2016, Ms Goddard was permanently employed.
  1. [3]
    Ms Goddard's role was to provide support to the two family lawyers.  Ms Goddard, along with other administrative staff, assisted with administrative tasks at the front counter, answering phones, attending to clients who came into the officer from time to time.
  1. [4]
    During Ms Goddard's employment, the Principal Lawyer of the Rockhampton Office had overall supervision of her work performance. The day to day allocation of tasks and Ms Goddard's work was undertaken by the two family lawyers.  
  1. [5]
    On 12 September 2019, Ms Goddard was informed that following a show cause process, a decision had been made to terminate her employment.
  1. [6]
    On 3 October 2019, Ms Goddard filed an application for reinstatement.  The application was accompanied by an affidavit and the termination letter was included at exhibit A to the affidavit.
  1. [7]
    Essentially, Ms Goddard argues that the performance management process that was implemented was unjust and had 'set her up to fail'.
  1. [8]
    Ms Goddard does not seek reinstatement to her previous position.  Ms Goddard's application states that she seeks re-employment in another position that the employer has available and that the Commission considers suitable, and reimbursement of lost earnings.
  1. [9]
    The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that the termination (for disciplinary reasons) was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.[1]
  1. [10]
    The Respondent accepts that the onus falls on it to prove the findings made against Ms Goddard in the disciplinary process to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission.[2] However:

Whether or not the Commission can be satisfied the misconduct occurred is a separate consideration to whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of the Act and whether the former employee is entitled to a remedy under the Act. However, if it is determined that an employee's dismissal was not authorised by the PS Act, that may lead to a conclusion that the dismissal was 'unjust' within the meaning of the Act.[3]

  1. [11]
    The matters which need to be determined in this proceeding are:
  • Whether Ms Goddard engaged in the conduct subject of Allegation 1;
  • whether Ms Goddard engaged in the conduct subject of Allegation 2;
  • whether this conduct gave rise to a disciplinary finding that was fair;
  • whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable;
  • whether reinstatement is impracticable or otherwise inappropriate; and
  • those issues mandated by s 320 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act).

Legislation, Code of Conduct and Performance Standards

  1. [12]
    Section 320 of the IR Act sets out the matters to be considered by the Commission in hearing an application under s 317.

320 Matters to be considered in deciding an application

In deciding whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the commission must consider –

  1. (a)
    whether the employee was notified of the reason for dismissal; and
  2. (b)
    whether the dismissal related to –
  1. (i)
    the operational requirements of the employer's undertaking, establishment or service; or
  1. (ii)
    the employee's conduct, capacity or performance; and
  1. (c)
    if the dismissal relates to the employee's conduct, capacity or performance –
  1. (i)
    whether the employee had been warned about the conduct, capacity or performance; or
  2. (ii)
    whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to the claim about the conduct, capacity or performance; and
  1. (d)
    any other matters the commission considers relevant.
  1. [13]
    The words harsh, unjust or unreasonable are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning.[4]
  1. [14]
    Ms Goddard was employed under the Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld).  As an LAQ employee, Ms Goddard was subject to the disciplinary regime under the Public Service Act 2008 (PS Act), Chapter 6 and to the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service.[5]
  1. [15]
    The PS Act (as in force in June 2019) relevantly provided:

187 Grounds for discipline

  1. (1)
    A public service employee's chief executive may discipline the employee if the chief executive is reasonably satisfied the employee has –
  1. (a)
    performed the employee's duties carelessly, incompetently or inefficiently; or…

(f) contravened, without reasonable excuse –

…

  1. (iii)
    a standard of conduct, if any, applying to the employee under an approved standard of practice under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994.
  1. (2)
    A disciplinary ground arises when the act or omission constituting the ground is done or made.

 188 Disciplinary action that may be taken against a public service employee

  1. (1)
    In disciplining a public service employee, the employee's chief executive may take the action, or order the action be taken, (disciplinary action) that the chief executive considers reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Examples of disciplinary action –

  • termination of employment
  • reduction of classification level and a consequential change of duties
  • transfer or redeployment to other public service employment
  • forfeiture or deferment of a remuneration increment or increase
  • reduction of remuneration level
  • imposition of a monetary penalty
  • if a penalty is imposed, a direction that the amount of the penalty be deducted from the employee's periodic remuneration payments
  • a reprimand
  1. [16]
    The position description for Ms Goddard's role sets out the expectations of the role:
  1. Manage administrative activities associated with a case file including opening, closing and archiving files; transcribing interviews; filing and service of documents; data entry and searches.
  2. Help the lawyer prepare for matters including preparing correspondence, keeping detailed file notes, gathering personal information from clients, drafting affidavits and preparing summons/subpoenas.
  3. Compile briefs for counsel including photocopying, indexing, typing instructions and collection of relevant police material from the police station or prosecutions.
  4. Act as the first point of contact and manage all incoming calls including providing legal information, referral advice and help clients prepare applications and legal documents.
  5. Help lawyers prioritise daily tasks and maintain appointments and calendars including scheduling appointments with clients, interpreters, experts and other relevant stakeholders.  Also make bookings for rooms, videoconferences, flights, accommodation and hire cars.
  6. Ensure appropriate grants of aid are allocated to files, process requests for grants or extensions of aid using elodge, pay accounts, generate cheques and prepare submissions to grants for expensive case requests.
  7. Obtain court lists, organise material, coordinate and direct clients at court.  Help counsel at conferences and attend court to take and relay instructions as required.
  8. Help with administrative activities including providing a secretariat function, preparing spreadsheets, maintaining equipment and supplies, mail, records management and other activities as directed.
  9. Actively participate in team planning and service improvement activities and comply with corporate responsibilities.
  10. Models the values of respect, quality and accountability.
  11. Maintains a high standard of practice through governance and risk management.[6] 

  1. [17]
    Ms Goddard agrees that the above is a fair description of her role but says that she did not pay accounts.[7]
  1. [18]
    Ms Goddard agreed that she was aware at the time of applying for the role on a permanent basis that the position description for her role also outlined under the heading 'What we are looking for' included two bullet points that read

You can build and maintain positive relationships with team members' and 'you take on additional duties when required, demonstrate flexibility, and reschedule or reorganise work to reflect changes in priority.[8]

  1. [19]
    Each year, an Achievement Development Plan (ADP) was developed with the applicant which set out the outcomes to be achieved for the year.  The plan for the 2017/2018 year listed the outcomes as:
  1. Responds to clients in a timely manner;
  2. Model the values of respect, quality and accountability;
  3. Develop letter writing skills and basis punctuation, spelling and grammar skills. [9]
  1. [20]
    The Respondent submits that Ms Goddard undertook training regarding the Code of Conduct on 22 April 2015, 3 May 2016, 3 May 2017 and 3 May 2018.[10]
  1. [21]
    Ms Goddard called the following witnesses:
  • Ms Shay Hawker
  • Ms Scheryn Aspinall-Clarke
  • Herself.
  1. [22]
    The Department called the following witnesses:
  • Ms Marita Kitchiner
  • Ms Louise Hedges
  • Ms Stephanie Nicolas

Reasons for decision

Section 320: Matters to be considered in deciding an application for reinstatement

Was Ms Goddard informed of reason for dismissal?

  1. [23]
    There is no dispute between the parties that Ms Goddard was informed of the reason for her dismissal.  I note that the termination letter under the hand of Anthony Reilly, Chief Executive Officer provides the reason for termination.[11]  Therefore, s 320(a) of the IR Act has been satisfied.
  1. [24]
    The dismissal does not relate to the operational requirements of the employer and therefore s 320(b)(i) is not relevant.

Did the dismissal relate to Ms Goddard's conduct, capacity and performance?

  1. [25]
    With regard to s 320(b)(ii) of the IR Act, the termination letter clearly states that the termination relates to Ms Goddard's conduct, capacity and performance. 
  1. [26]
    Following the implementation of a formal performance management process, a show cause disciplinary process was commenced which led to the substantiation of the following allegations:

Allegation 1 – that between 15 February 2019 and 3 June 2019, you failed to meet the expected performance standard required of you in your role as a Litigation Support Officer (LSO) with respect to appropriate communication with administrative staff; and

Allegation 2 – that between 15 February 2019 and 3 June 2019, you failed to meet the expected performance standards required of you in your role as a LSO with respect to task management and appropriate communication with family lawyers (your immediate supervisors).

  1. [27]
    The Respondent submits that:
  • from August 2018, Ms Goddard was warned of her unsatisfactory performance through a series of informal performance management meetings;
  • on 31 January 2019, the applicant was given written notice that she was not meeting the performance standards of her role and would commence on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP);
  • the PIP process itself involved an initial performance improvement meeting on 13 February 2019 and then a series of eight performance improvement meetings between 6 March 2019 and 3 June 2019;
  • the PIP clearly articulated the areas requiring improvement, the required standard of an LSO in respect of each area, the action to be taken in respect of each area, and the expected outcomes;
  • Ms Goddard was involved in setting the terms of the PIP, and the final version as agreed was signed by Ms Goddard on 15 February 2019; and
  • the show cause disciplinary process commenced by letter of 12 June 2019, delivered on 17 June 2019, which notified the applicant of the two allegations against her and invited her to respond.  That response was received on 1 July 2019.[12]
  1. [28]
    Ms Nicholas prepared a script to support her performance discussion with Ms Goddard and introducing the informal process.  The script clearly outlines issues with Ms Goddard's technical skills and professional interactions and presentation.  The script addresses public contact & interpersonal skills at length.[13]
  1. [29]
    The Respondent sets out the process which unfolded over the course of the eight performance improvement meetings:
  1.   prior to the meetings, Ms Nicholas would seek feedback form the applicant's family lawyer supervisors, Mr Rundle and Ms Kitchiner, regarding the applicant's performance;
  1.   this feedback would then be relayed to the applicant in the meeting, together with any other relevant feedback, including in respect of other administrative staff;
  1.   a written summary of what was discussed at the PIP meeting would be provided to the applicant by Ms Nicholas in advance of the subsequent PIP meeting;
  1.   at the PIP meeting, the applicant would be given an opportunity to raise any matters arising out of what was discussed at the previous meeting, and what had occurred in the intervening period;
  1.   additional training was provided to the applicant during the PIP process to facilitate improvement in the relevant areas of performance;
  1.   additional support was provided to the applicant throughout the PIP process through the proviso of external counselling sessions through the Employee Assistance Program;
  1.   the applicant was also advised that she was entitled to bring a support person to the PIP meetings.[14]
  1. [30]
    There is no doubt that Ms Goddard was warned about her conduct, capacity and performance and understood that she was participating in a process to manage her performance.  That Ms Goddard understood the seriousness of the matter is underlined by the fact that she sought legal advice regarding the content of the Performance Improvement Plan.[15]
  1. [31]
    The Respondent says that at each stage of the performance management process, the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to respond and availed herself of that opportunity.  I will explore the various stages of the process below.
  1. [32]
    The first show cause notice was 19 pages in length and clearly set out the two allegations against Ms Goddard and provided detailed particulars as to each allegation. It also included a number of attachments.[16]
  1. [33]
    With regard to the show cause disciplinary process which followed the performance management process, the Respondent says Ms Goddard:
  1. was provided with 14 days to respond to the First Show Cause Notice. Although her response was received outside of this timeframe, it was nonetheless taken into account in Mr Reilly's determination of whether the allegations were substantiated;
  1. was afforded a further period of seven days to respond to the Second Show Cause letter. At the applicant's request, this was extended by an additional 14 days. The applicant's response, by her then legal representatives, Grant & Simpson Lawyers, was received on 23 August 2019. It addressed both the First Show Cause Notice and the Second Show Cause Notice. Although by the Second Show Cause Notice, the relevant disciplinary findings had already been made, Mr Reilly nonetheless addressed each of the matters raised by the applicant's response in the Penalty Letter.[17]

 

  1. [34]
    Ms Goddard does not dispute that she was given an opportunity to respond.

Other matters

  1. [35]
    Ms Goddard says that the PIP required her to successfully interact with a colleague who had previously bullied her and that the performance plan involved improving a relationship with a second colleague who she says did not have to act fairly or reasonably towards her.  I will give detailed consideration to the performance improvement process below.
  1. [36]
    Further to her submissions about the unfairness of the process, Ms Goddard says that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable because LAQ did not give consideration to other disciplinary action that could have been taken against her.[18]
  1. [37]
    Ms Goddard submits that she undertook work for lawyers in the office other than her direct supervisors, family lawyers Marita Kitchiner and Lance Rundle.  Ms Goddard says that Mr Rundle did not complain about her work and that the PIP was put in place because one lawyer, Marita Kitchiner complained about her work.

Background: The informal performance management process and other events from August to December 2018

  1. [38]
    Ms Nicholas said that ADP meetings and reviews are conducted annually. Ms Nicholas said that Ms Goddard was due for her ADP review for 2017/18 and a new ADP for 2018/19 around mid-August 2018.  In the lead up to such meetings, Ms Nicholas says that she obtains feedback from the direct supervisor or the relevant staff member.  Ms Nicholas said that as part of the process she sought formal feedback from Ms Kitchiner and Mr Rundle and both generally raised concerns with her about Ms Goddard's performance.[19]
  1. [39]
    Ms Nicholas said that based on the feedback and her own observations of Ms Goddard, Ms Nicholas determined that Ms Goddard's work performance was not satisfactory and required improvement.[20] 
  1. [40]
    Prior to meeting with Ms Goddard on 20 August 2018 to informally discuss Ms Goddard's work performance, Ms Nicholas took a number of steps in preparation. She also consulted with Ms Camden, Assistant Director, People Culture and Capability (PCC) team at LAQ's Brisbane head office and Julie Cork of Julie Cork & Associates (an external consultant) to seek advice on the best way to manage Ms Goddard's performance issues.[21]
  1. [41]
    The three issues noted as areas of concern with Ms Goddard's performance at the 20 August 2018 meeting were:
  1. technical skills;
  2. professional interactions and presentations; and
  3. public contact and interpersonal skills.[22]

 

  1. [42]
    Further to this, Ms Goddard was advised that if her performance did not improve over the following three months, Ms Nicholas would consider placing her on a PIP.[23]
  1. [43]
    Ms Nicholas and Ms Kitchiner then met with Ms Goddard on 14 September 2018, 26 September 2018, 2 November 2018 and 29 November 2018.  The Respondent says that the purpose of these meetings was to provide Ms Goddard with an increased level of support to help her improve her performance prior to finalising her ADP for 2018/19.  Ms Goddard was also provided with some additional training.[24]
  1. [44]
    Ms Kitchiner's statement also outlines her reflections on Ms Goddard's performance and the feedback she provided during the informal performance process.[25]
  1. [45]
    Ms Goddard's statement addressed what she called a 'breakdown caused by Marita Kitchiner'.  Ms Goddard said that on 11 October 2018, she had a conversation with Ms Kitchiner about their current files.  Ms Goddard said that Ms Kitchiner's tone and body language started to become aggressive toward her and that she became upset about the way Ms Kitchiner spoke to her.[26]  Ms Goddard said that she disclosed to Ms Nicholas that Ms Kitchiner had been using passive aggressive tone and body language toward her and it was making her very upset.  Ms Goddard went to her doctor and following this was on leave from 12 October 2018 until 23 October 2018.  Ms Goddard said that on 29 November 2018 when she met with Ms Nicholas and Ms Kitchiner to discuss her performance.  She said that when she tried to speak up about her concerns, she was shut down and then accused of being aggressive toward Ms Nicholas and Ms Kitchiner.[27]
  1. [46]
    In response to this, Ms Nicholas says that she recalled being advised that Ms Goddard was upset.  When Ms Nicholas attended on her, Ms Goddard was sobbing. Ms Nicholas said that she does not recall Ms Goddard saying that Ms Kitchiner was using passive aggressive tone and body language toward her. Ms Nicholas does recall her saying words to the effect of 'I can't take it anymore' before she spoke about Ms Hedges and the PIP process generally.[28]
  1. [47]
    Further, in response to Ms Goddard saying she had been shut down in the meeting on 29 November 2018, Ms Nicholas disagrees and refers to the notes of the meeting.[29]
  1. [48]
    Ms Goddard's evidence was that she didn't recall 'task management' being raised as an area of concern in the informal performance meetings but that she did recall that discussion about timely completion of tasks was discussed 'briefly'.[30]
  1. [49]
    Ms Goddard said that she recalled there being comments about completing her dictations on time and thought the main issue raised with her was her spelling and grammar. She also recalled that there were comments about the importance of prioritising tasks so that urgent work was done first.[31]
  1. [50]
    Ms Goddard recalled that at the meetings she was told that if she had any issues working out what work was more important to complete or if she couldn't get tasks done within the set timeframe, that she should raise that with the relevant family lawyer.[32]
  1. [51]
    Ms Goddard was asked if she recalled that one of the issues raised with her by Ms Nicholas was her interfering in workplace relations in the office and her keenness to lodge formal complaints.  She was also asked if she recalled Ms Nicholas drawing her attention to the employee complaints management policy and suggested that in the first instance she raise complaints informally. Ms Goddard said that she did not recall this.[33]
  1. [52]
    Ms Goddard also said that she didn't recall that Ms Nicholas had said to her that even in raising informal complaints, Ms Goddard had to show some maturity and judgement before coming to Ms Nicholas with issues.[34]
  1. [53]
    Ms Goddard agreed that at one of the meetings she raised a concern about communicating with Ms Kitchiner and that she wasn't sure how to interrupt her because she often had her door closed.   She also recalled that at the meeting held in November 2018, one strategy that was suggested was to use email.[35]
  1. [54]
    Ms Goddard remembered receiving feedback that Ms Kitchiner and Mr Rundle felt that if Ms Goddard stopped allowing herself to be distracted by extraneous matters, she would be better able to concentrate on performing her role.[36]
  1. [55]
    Ms Goddard was taken to a complaint that she made about her colleague Ms Hedges in July 2018.  Ms Goddard agreed that the complaints against Ms Hedges were found to be unsubstantiated and that one of the outcomes of her complaint was that LAQ organised for Ms Goddard and Ms Hedges to attend a coaching session with an external psychologist consultant called Penny Gordon.[37]
  1. [56]
    Ms Goddard was asked if she recalled that during that session she was coached and given some strategies for managing conflict.  When asked if she recalled whether she and MsHedges were given some strategies about how to moderate their responses to one another, Ms Goddard said:

[MS GODDARD] I didn't listen to one bit of it.

 

[MS MARR]  You didn't listen to any of that training?---

 

[MS GODDARD] Penny Gordan wasn't independent. She was employed – she's employed by Legal Aid Queensland as a psychologist.  I had my own ways and was – had my own external, who was independent to everyone in Legal Aid, that was helping me cope with these strategies.[38]

  1. [57]
    Ms Nicholas said that at the conclusion of the informal process, whilst there had been some improvements, Ms Nicholas remained of the view that Ms Goddard was not working to an acceptable standard as required of an LSO. Ms Nicholas said that the main areas of concern were communication, task management and accuracy.  For example, Ms Goddard had not made any significant effort to complete the training tasks set for her and her interaction with other staff continued to be of concern.[39]
  1. [58]
    Ms Nicholas said that on 12 December 2018, she wrote to Ms Camden regarding her concerns and sought guidance about placing Ms Goddard on a PIP.  Ms Nicholas says that Ms Camden confirmed that it would be reasonable to progress to a PIP process with Ms Goddard given the need for ongoing improvement in certain areas as identified during the informal review process.[40]
  1. [59]
    Ms Nicholas met with Ms Goddard on 13 December 2018 and advised her that as she was still not performing to an acceptable standard, a PIP would commence in the new year.[41]
  1. [60]
    On 31 January 2019, Ms Nicholas formally notified Ms Goddard in writing of the decision to implement a PIP for a period of three months.  Ms Nicolas attached a draft PIP to the letter and asked Ms Goddard to attend a meeting with Ms Camden and herself on 4 February 2019 to discuss the PIP.[42]
  1. [61]
    On 4 February 2019, Ms Goddard requested the meeting to discuss the PIP be postponed to 11 February 2019 at 4pm. Ms Goddard was concerned that she had been given one business day to consider the correspondence regarding the PIP and advised that she was seeking legal advice.[43]  The request to move the meeting was granted.
  1. [62]
    On 11 February 2019, Ms Nicholas says she received a letter from Ms Goddard in response to her correspondence dated 31 January 2019.[44] In the letter, Ms Goddard said that she was shocked at the contents of the letter and was of the understanding from feedback that she was meeting the requirements of her position. Ms Goddard set out her concerns regarding the assertions about her performance and also requested an external investigation of her complaint dated 7 January 2019 (in relation to the events of 6 and 10 December 2018) be re-investigated by an independent person as she was not satisfied with the outcome.[45]
  1. [63]
    A meeting of Ms Goddard, Mr Castle (Specialist Consultant, Performance & Coaching) and Ms Nicholas was held on 11 February 2019 to discuss the draft PIP. Ms Nicholas recalls Mr Castle informing Ms Goddard that this was a supportive process, not a 'show cause' or disciplinary process.  The request for an external investigation of Ms Goddard's complaint was also discussed.  During the meeting, Ms Goddard advised that she was feeling sick and wanted to postpone the PIP meeting.  Ms Nicholas says that this was accommodated and Ms Goddard was encouraged to bring a support person to the future meeting.[46]  Ms Nicholas's notes setting out the matters discussed at the meeting were sent to Ms Goddard in an email on 12 February 2019.[47]
  1. [64]
    Ms Nicholas recalls a meeting with Ms Goddard and Ms Camden where the PIP was discussed and some amendments were made.  The detail of this meeting is set out from [26]-[28] of Exhibit 9.
  1. [65]
    Ms Goddard was shown the performance improvement plan dated 15 February 2019 which is signed by her.  Ms Goddard agreed that she had had the opportunity to see a draft of the plan and further agreed that she had taken legal advice on the draft plan.  Ms Goddard also agreed that changes were made to the draft performance improvement plan and it was the final version incorporating those changes that was finally signed off.[48]
  1. [66]
    Ms Goddard said that she sought legal advice about the PIP as she did not want to sign it but felt that if she failed to sign it she would be terminated.  Ms Goddard said that she provided a response to the PIP and that she felt the PIP was retaliation by Ms Nicholas to the informal complaint made about Ms Kitchiner in November 2018 and the formal complaint with respect to Ms Hedges in December 2018. Ms Goddard said she had no faith in the PIP process.[49]

The Performance Improvement Process – February 2019

  1. [67]
    The final version of the PIP was provided to Ms Goddard with an accompanying email outlining the nature of the PIP.[50]
  1. [68]
    The PIP outlined a number of areas of improvement but the Respondent submits that there are three which are relevant to the show cause disciplinary process and these proceedings.
  1. [69]
    Item 1 of the PIP lists the 'Area Requiring Remedial Actions' as: Communication with family lawyers (immediate supervisors). The column headed 'Action to be Undertaken' lists three actions.  These are: communicate any difficulties with task management to lawyers at an early stage so that competing priorities can be managed; Be upfront and honest in your responses to queries about the progress of the allocated work; Advise lawyers in a timely manner when there is important information or an update about files, e.g. when subpoena material is returned.  There are four items listed under the 'Expected Outcome' section:
  • You proactively advise lawyers if you cannot meet allocated timeframes or have other difficulties with files, without reminding or lawyers having to follow up;
  • when lawyers allocate you tasks and timeframes, the work is completed to an acceptable standard within expected timeframes without lawyers having to follow up;
  • when lawyers ask you about the progress of a matter you provide an honest and open response; and

 

  • you will build trust with the lawyers and be able to communicate openly and positively with them.
  1. [70]
    Area Requiring Remedial Action Item 3 of the PIP is: Communicate with administrative staff and attending to administrative office tasks. The relevant 'required standard' is: You can build and sustain positive relationships with team members and colleagues. The relevant 'expected outcome' is: You will build trust with other administrative staff and be able to communicate openly and positively with them.
  1. [71]
    The final Area Requiring Remedial Action relevant to this proceeding is Item Five: Task Management. The required standards and expected outcomes are listed on page three and four of the PIP.  I won't list them here as they are extensive.
  1. [72]
    There was evidence led at the hearing regarding a range of matters which I would characterise as either relating to task management and communication with the family lawyers or relationships with other administrative staff.   I have dealt with that evidence under my discussion of each of the allegations subject of the show cause process.
  1. [73]
    The PIP process was extended in April 2019. The Respondent says that this was to provide Ms Goddard with a further opportunity to complete and implement training.  Ms Goddard says that the PIP was extended without her consent, that she had no opportunity to seek legal advice about the extension and that she felt she had no option but to sit and complete the process.[51]
  1. [74]
    Ms Nicholas says in her statement that Ms Goddard was employed as a family law LSO. At the Rockhampton Regional Office there were only two family lawyers to whom Ms Goddard reported, Mr Rundle and Ms Kitchiner.  Ms Nicholas says that once the PIP process commenced, she made it clear to Ms Goddard that she should be focusing on completing tasks for Ms Kitchiner and Mr Rundle.  Ms Nicholas says that she was of the view that this would provide the best opportunity to meet the expectations of the PIP if Ms Goddard was not occupied or distracted by other work.[52]

The Show Cause Disciplinary Process

  1. [75]
    Ms Goddard was notified of the two allegations against her and invited to respond to the allegations by way of a first show cause notice dated 12 June 2019, delivered on 17 June 2019. Ms Goddard provided a response on 1 July 2019.
  1. [76]
    A disciplinary findings letter dated 29 July 2019 was delivered to Ms Goddard on 2 August 2019.  This letter informed Ms Goddard that the allegations were found to be substantiated, and that the proposed disciplinary action being considered was termination. Ms Goddard was invited to respond and this response was provided by Ms Goddard's legal representatives on 23 August 2019.
  1. [77]
    On 12 September 2019, Ms Goddard was informed of the decision to terminate her employment and provided with reasons for that decision.
  1. [78]
    As the allegations arise from the unsuccessful PIP process, the below sets out information pertaining to each allegation accompanied by my consideration of the material.

Allegations subject of the Show Cause Disciplinary Process following the unsuccessful PIP

  1. [79]
    Part of the particulars of Allegation 1 specifically related to interactions with fellow LSO Ms Shay Hawker who also worked at the LAQ Rockhampton Regional Office.
  1. [80]
    While I accept that it was during the course of the PIP that Ms Hawker told Ms Nicholas about the things which Ms Goddard had said to her, it is unclear to me which of these events occurred prior to the PIP during the second half of 2018.   While Ms Goddard made mention of the events happening some time ago and asked Ms Hawker if it took her six months to complain, it appears that the interactions with Ms Hawker occurred over a number of different occasions, and the show cause process demonstrates that Ms Goddard provided detailed responses to the particulars of the allegations regarding her interactions with Ms Hawker.
  1. [81]
    The Respondent submits that when the interaction with Ms Hawker was raised with Ms Goddard at the PIP meeting on 28 March 2019, Ms Goddard did not deny making the remarks, though she said that the remarks were made in the context of things being said on both sides.[53]   The Respondent notes that Ms Goddard has consistently denied that she made remarks in front of a colleague during the front counter training which inferred that Ms Hawker could not do her job without Ms Goddard.  However, even if I am not satisfied on the evidence that such remarks were made, the Respondent submits it should not detract from the finding that as a whole, Ms Goddard's conduct in respect of Ms Hawker was substantiated.
  1. [82]
    I note that Ms Goddard's affidavit states that it was apparent to her that Mr Sheppard and Ms Hayes had no confidence in Ms Hawker's work and she says that both had made comments to her about not trusting the accuracy in the conflicts identified by Ms Hawker.[54]
  1. [83]
    Ms Goddard called Ms Hawker as a witness to the proceeding. Ms Hawker confirmed that she had not made a formal complaint to Ms Nicholas regarding Ms Goddard. 
  1. [84]
    Ms Goddard did not ask Ms Hawker about any of the other communication or interactions between them that formed the particulars of the allegation.
  1. [85]
    Under cross-examination, Ms Hawker agreed that when she started at LAQ, Ms Goddard said to her, 'I hope you're not here to take my job'.  She also agreed that at a dinner on the evening of her first day at LAQ, Ms Goddard had told her who to stay away from in the office and who there might be 'dramas with'.[55]
  1. [86]
    With regard to the other particulars of the allegation as they related to Ms Hawker, her evidence was, in summary:

 

  • She couldn't recall word-for-word what Ms Goddard had said to her but there were days when some comments did make her feel she wasn't 'chalked up to what everyone else knew in the office';[56]
  • Ms Goddard said to her that Mr Sheppard would come to get Ms Goddard to do his work;[57]
  • she could recall Ms Goddard saying a comment to the effect of: 'I pick up your slack when you're not here';[58]
  • when Ms Goddard claimed Ms Hayes came to her to have tasks performed, this caused Ms Hawker to feel deflated and not good enough to do her job.[59]
  • she recalled not long before she left that she and Ms Goddard had said that they would stop talking about work,[60] that is, issues outside of what is directly at hand.
  • she could not recall Ms Goddard warning her against talking to Ms Nicholas;[61]
  • she recalled Ms Goddard saying that she had seen Ms Hawker in Ms Nicholas' office and asking why Ms Hawker had gone in there. But she could not recall Ms Goddard saying that it wasn't a good idea to go and talk to Ms Nicholas;[62]
  • she recalled attending lunch with Ms Goddard where she was informed about a conversation between Ms Goddard and Ms Nicholas regarding Ms Hawker's work hours and that Ms Nicholas had commented that Ms Hawker's hours where not enough and that Ms Goddard had to pick up her slack;[63]
  • following the lunch, Ms Hawker went to see Ms Nicholas. She recalled becoming very upset in the meeting.  She told Ms Nicholas what Ms Goddard had said to her about having to pick up the slack with Mr Sheppard and Ms Hayes;[64]
  • Ms Hawker also recalled telling Ms Nicholas about the incident where Ms Goddard had said in front of Ms Hawker's fiancée that Ms Hawker had a crush on Mr Rundle;[65]
  • she wanted the outcome of the meeting to be that Ms Nicholas would talk to Mr Sheppard and Ms Hayes and that if there was a problem it could be fixed;[66]
  • she knew Ms Nicholas was going to raise the comments with Ms Goddard but that she didn't want 'the drama or the chaos that went with it';[67]
  • she said that at a second meeting, Ms Nicholas told her that Mr Sheppard and Ms Hayes did not make comments;[68]

 

  • she did not want to escalate the matter to a formal complaint as she didn't want any more chaos;[69]
  • she recalled a meeting held by Ms Nicholas that Ms Hawker and Ms Goddard attended, "I remember Stephanie saying our behaviour is, like, high-schoolist, and j – gave – just gave us a direction just to – to stop – just stop our drama, and stop our cattiness, and stop distracting the other workers because of it".[70]

 

  1. [87]
    The Respondent submits that Ms Goddard's remarks about Ms Hawkers' hours of work and 'picking up her slack' were insensitive and unnecessary in circumstances where she knew that Ms Hawker had recently suffered a great personal loss and that at a PIP meeting on 6th March 2019 Ms Goddard had been reminded to be mindful of her conversations with Ms Hawker in the context of an earlier interaction where Ms Hawker had found Ms Goddard's communication style a little intimidating.[71]
  1. [88]
    Ms Goddard says that she was not provided with a written copy of the complaint and that the allegation was read out to her from handwritten notes made by Ms Nicholas. Ms Goddard says that following the discussion with Ms Nicholas and Ms Hawker, she thought that was the end of the matter. Ms Goddard say that she has still not received a written copy of such complaint as per the LAQ complaint policy, despite many requests for it to be provided and LAQ using it as a reason for her termination.  Ms Goddard said that from March 2019, when the matter was raised with her, she was very anxious about what would be thrown at her next.  Ms Goddard said that she was afraid that if she brought it up with Ms Nicholas, she would take it as a complaint and it would be used against her with respect to point number two of the PIP.
  1. [89]
    Ms Nicholas says that Ms Goddard was not provided with a copy of a written complaint from Ms Hawker because the complaint was informal and not made in writing. Ms Nicholas said that she had dealt with Ms Hawker's complaint as an informal process and had written notes of her conversation with her which she relayed to Ms Goddard.  Ms Nicholas recalls that Ms Goddard admitted the conduct which was the subject of Ms Hawker's complaint and says that this is set out in her notes dated 25 March 2019.[72]
  1. [90]
    In summary, the disciplinary finding regarding Allegation One as it pertains to Ms Hawker was substantiated on the balance of probabilities:[73]
  • The substance of the allegations were relayed to Ms Goddard in her PIP meeting of 28 March 2019;
  • Ms Goddard did not specifically deny any of the allegations made;
  • Ms Goddard was provided with a written summary of the discussion at the meeting on 28 March 2019;
  • Ms Goddard's response to the matters raised at the 28 March 2019 meeting was inconsistent with her assertion that the allegation was 'inherently implausible';
  • Ms Goddard's response to the allegation focused on challenging Ms Hawker's work performance but the allegation was concerned with the nature of Ms Goddard's interactions with Ms Hawker; and
  • in relation to the incident, Ms Goddard was specifically reminded that her communication with other staff must remain professional and courteous.

Complaint against Ms Hedges

The relationship between Ms Goddard and Ms Hedges

 

  1. [91]
    In her closing submissions, Ms Goddard outlined the background issues that existed in the lead up to or alongside the informal process at the end of 2018 and the formal process in 2019.  Ms Goddard recalled making a complaint about Ms Hedges in 2017 in which allegations were found to have been substantiated.  I note that this is not in dispute between the parties.
  1. [92]
    Ms Hedges' statement for this proceeding also discusses the history of her relationship with Ms Goddard.  Ms Hedges acknowledges that in 2017, Ms Goddard made a formal complaint about her and that some of the complaints were found to be substantiated. Ms Hedges says that after that complaint, she felt that she and Ms Goddard had been able to move forward. Ms Hedges says that she took on board feedback and made more of an effort with Ms Goddard and that in her view they were maintaining a civil working relationship.[74]
  1. [93]
    Ms Goddard discussed her unsubstantiated complaint against Ms Hedges in July 2018.  She said that at that time she requested to move to another part of the office but that this request was denied.
  1. [94]
    Ms Hedges also said that in July 2018, Ms Goddard lodged a further complaint about her. Ms Hedges said that in August 2018 she was informed that the allegations were unsubstantiated.  Ms Hedges said that in September 2018, she had a phone conversation with Ms Gordon and that the following day she participated in a meeting with Ms Goddard and Ms Nicholas facilitated by Ms Gordon.[75]
  1. [95]
    Ms Goddard recalled the meeting with Ms Gordon, Ms Hedges and Ms Nicholas held on 3 September 2018. Ms Goddard said that the meeting was unsuccessful as Ms Hedges failed to apologise to her and failed to acknowledge that her actions were wrong.  Ms Goddard said that she thought the conversation with Ms Gordon was 'stacked against' her.[76]
  1. [96]
    Following private discussions with Ms Hedges and Ms Goddard, Ms Nicholas recalls Ms Gordon telling her words to the effect of 'a mediation is not appropriate as they are both too upset, and both feel very unsafe'.[77]
  1. [97]
    Ms Goddard's statement recalls an incident on 6 December 2018 where she says Ms Hedges approached her and started waving a piece of paper in her face and speaking to her aggressively.[78]  Ms Goddard also recalls an incident on 10 December 2018 when Ms Nicholas asked her to go and sit in the front reception area as they were short staffed.  Ms Goddard says that she advised Ms Nicholas that Ms Hawker was going to be back in the afternoon and there would be sufficient staff but if Ms Hawker did not return, Ms Goddard would go and sit out there.[79]  Ms Goddard says that not long after this, she heard Ms Hedges telling Ms Nicholas that Ms Goddard's medical certificate was 'bullshit' and she was needed out the front.  Ms Goddard said that she was upset that her medical condition had been disclosed and she was embarrassed that colleagues had witnessed it and a member of the public could have walked in at any time.[80]
  1. [98]
    Ms Nicholas' evidence was that on 10 December 2018 she had a conversation with Ms Hedges where she spoke to her about her behaviour toward Ms Goddard.[81]
  1. [99]
    Ms Goddard says that on 13 December 2018, she raised her concerns about the incidents on 6 and 10 December 2018 with Ms Nicholas.  Ms Goddard says that Ms Nicholas admitted in the conversation that Ms Hedges' actions on 10 December 2018 were 'out of line'.  Ms Goddard says that Ms Nicholas informed her that she had 'left it too long' for Ms Nicholas to deal with as she was going on leave.  Ms Goddard said that Ms Nicholas went on leave that same day and this made Ms Goddard very upset as she would be waiting for six weeks until Ms Nicholas returned on 16 January 2019.[82]
  1. [100]
    Ms Goddard recalled that she did not think Ms Nicholas had taken her complaints seriously and that this had led her to make a further complaint to Ms Volk in January 2019. Ms Goddard said that it was after this third complaint that she believes the relationship with Ms Nicholas deteriorated again.[83]
  1. [101]
    The outcome letter provided to Ms Goddard regarding her complaint comprehensively addresses both of the allegations made against Ms Hedges and the information available to Ms Volk in considering Ms Goddard's complaint.  The letter concludes:

I make no findings of workplace bullying.  In coming to this conclusion, as mentioned above, I have also taken into consideration your two previous formal complaints and outcomes from 2017 and 2018. I do not find Ms Hedge's actions 'unreasonable and repeated' which is required in order for them to amount to workplace bullying.

I find in respect of Allegation 1 that appropriate management action will be taken by Ms Nicholas when Ms Hedges returns from leave.  In respect of Allegation 2, I am satisfied that appropriate management action has already been taken and no further action is required.

It is clear from my enquiries that you have not allowed Ms Nicholas reasonable time to resolve your complaint given the Christmas closure and absences on leave. I am satisfied that Ms Nicholas did take your complaint seriously when you raised it with her on 13 December 2018 and that further, you were provided with assurances from Ms Nicholas that she would look into and take appropriate action in relation to your complaint. She advised you that she would likely not be able to resolve the matters before she when on leave. However, her clear intent was to resolve the matters.  In the circumstances, you should have allowed Ms Nicholas reasonable time in order to address the matters you raised with her.[84]

  1. [102]
    Ms Hedges said that she was surprised to find in January 2019 that Ms Goddard had made a further complaint of bullying against her.  She said she was subsequently advised that there had been a finding that those allegations were unsubstantiated.[85]
  1. [103]
    Ms Hedges said that she felt that Ms Goddard's complaints against her were vexatious and frivolous in nature.  She said that the complaints were causing her significant stress and anxiety, Ms Hedges was concerned about future communication with Ms Goddard may result in further complaints being made.  Ms Hedges lodged a complaint against Ms Goddard on 10 May 2019. The allegations in her complaint were found to be not substantiated.[86]

The 29 May 2019 interaction and subsequent complaint

  1. [104]
    Ms Goddard was asked to recall the interaction with Ms Hedges that occurred on 29 May 2019.  Ms Goddard agreed that she had passed Ms Hedges in the hallway around 2.00pm, just after lunch and that Ms Hedges had asked whether Mr Rundle had taken his own car to Gladstone. Ms Goddard agreed that she had responded by saying that Mr Rundle had gone on his lunch break and that this was the end of the conversation.[87]
  1. [105]
    Ms Hedges' statement outlined the interaction which occurred with Ms Goddard on 29 May 2019. It mirrors Ms Goddard's recollection in terms of where it occurred and what was said. Ms Hedges says that it was a passing comment and she did not use any aggressive tone with Ms Goddard. Ms Hedges says that she asked the question in a general conversational tone, considered it to be a civil conversation and did not think any further about it.[88]
  1. [106]
    Ms Goddard said that following that conversation she was extremely anxious.[89] It was put to Ms Goddard that with the benefit of hindsight she might agree that the anxiety she felt as a result of the interaction may have been the result of a negative assumption on her part and that she may have assumed that by Ms Hedges making that remark that she was questioning Ms Goddard. Ms Goddard disagreed and said that Ms Hedges came across as though she was questioning or interrogating her.[90]
  1. [107]
    Ms Goddard was asked if now, with the distance of some time, and reflecting back on the day and the event, she accepted that another way of interpreting that situation may have been that Ms Hedges was just making a passing remark and that an alternative may have been to ignore Ms Goddard altogether which would have been inconsistent with the messaging Ms Hedges and Ms Goddard had been given by the external psychologist during their joint sessions with Penny Gordon.  Ms Goddard disagreed that Ms Hedges had made a passing remark but agreed another option may have been to ignore her.  With regard to the messaging provided by Ms Gordon, Ms Goddard said "And like I said to you before, I don't – I didn't take into consideration what Penny Gordon said."[91]
  1. [108]
    However, Ms Goddard agreed that she had earlier given evidence that she recalled that one of the strategies that Ms Gordon gave to both she and Ms Hedges was to greet each other or acknowledge each other when they passed each other as a way of rebuilding the working relationship.[92]
  1. [109]
    Ms Goddard asked Ms Hedges if Ms Hedges had made attempts to get along with her. Ms Hedges said that she tried to maintain a civil relationship and say, 'good morning', 'good afternoon', and general discussion about work related issues.[93]
  1. [110]
    Ms Goddard recalled that she was upset enough at Ms Hedges' remark to send an email to Ms Nicholas about it. Ms Goddard was taken to the last paragraph of the email:

This is the sort of behaviour that I have complained to you previously in my complaints that gives me anxiety.  I don't appreciate being questioned about where Lance is and given that he was in the office all day and made it clear that he was going to lunch. I am as anxious as ever and now I am back to square again (sic) one.[94]

  1. [111]
    Ms Goddard said that she wasn't upset when she sent the email and agreed that she had said that the interaction had caused her anxiety at a time when she was already on a medical certificate. Ms Goddard said that the interaction 'triggered a big anxiety attack for me' and agreed that she expected Ms Nicholas to treat it seriously and follow through on it.[95]
  1. [112]
    Ms Goddard said that she wanted to build a better relationship with Ms Hedges.[96] Ms Goddard also said that she expected that Ms Nicholas would go and speak to Ms Hedges about the email.[97]
  1. [113]
    Ms Hedges evidence was that finding out that Ms Goddard had complained to Ms Nicholas about the interaction had 'totally caught her off guard'. She said that she thought that the comment to Ms Goddard had been 'a general off hand comment as we passed'.  Ms Hedges said that the impact on her personally on being notified that the issue had been raised was:

[MS HEDGES] I totally broke down because I think that was the fourth complaint Ms Goddard had made against me.  As I say, I – it was totally unexpected because I – I didn't believe that I'd done anything to bully or harass her. I just totally broke down crying. That was sort of the – the final straw for me. I  - I didn’t' know if I could continue to work in that environment. I had to go into work that morning because I had a couple of conferences scheduled. So I contacted my senior supervisor in Brisbane, advised her what was happening and she suggested that I'd take a few days off just to – to sort of get myself together. But I was ex – extremely upset.[98]

  1. [114]
    Ms Goddard was taken to a document dated 30 March 2019 that she described in her affidavit as a suicide note.[99]  Ms Goddard was asked if a couple days before she wrote the note, she had recorded in her PIP review meeting that the communication with the administrative staff had been amazing.  Ms Goddard agreed but said 'my self-esteem went up and down…every day I went to work. It was amazing one day. It was shit the next.'[100]
  1. [115]
    Ms Goddard agreed that the note reflected that she had lost faith and trust in a lot of people and that she felt that LAQ, particularly the Rockhampton office, was not a good place to work at the time and that things didn't improve for her right through to June 2019.[101]
  1. [116]
    Ms Goddard referred Ms Hedges to Ms Hedges' affidavit where she described the impact of the ongoing interpersonal issues between them both.[102]
  1. [117]
    Ms Hedges was asked if she thought Ms Goddard may have been experiencing similar emotions as her.  Ms Hedges replied by agreeing and stating that during the meeting they both had with Penny Gordon, it was acknowledged that both women were suffering stress and anxiety.[103]
  1. [118]
    Ms Goddard asked both Ms Hedges and Ms Nicholas questions to determine if they were aware of Mr Rundle's movements on 29 May 2019.  It appears to me that the reason she was doing this was to establish that both women should have been aware that Mr Rundle could not have taken his car to Gladstone that day. This would mean that Ms Hedges would have no reason to ask about Mr Rundle's whereabouts and that Ms Nicholas would have been able to determine that Ms Hedge's question was unnecessary.  The evidence did not demonstrate that either woman had reason to be across the details of Mr Rundle's calendar for the day, or that his calendar made it clear that he was not required to be at court in Gladstone.
  1. [119]
    I accept the Respondent's submission that whether Mr Rundle had left to go to court or not is a distraction.  The grievance communicated to Ms Nicholas in Ms Goddard's email is that she believed Ms Hedges had questioned her, that she didn't appreciate it and it had caused her anxiety.[104]
  1. [120]
    Ms Goddard asked Ms Nicholas if a requirement of the PIP was that Ms Goddard was to bring any concerns or feelings that she was experiencing to Ms Nicholas agreed that it was.[105] Ms Nicholas also recalled that as well as the section in the PIP called 'Communication with a Principal Lawyer', there was a conversation with Ms Goddard prior to the first informal meeting and that it was at this meeting she used the 'script' which Ms Cork, an external consultant.  Ms Nicholas prepared the document on the advice of Ms Cork.[106]
  1. [121]
    Ms Nicholas was referred to a copy of the 'script' that was used in the discussion with Ms Goddard. Ms Nicholas was directed to one part of this document and was asked whether this issue was raised with Ms Goddard.  She agreed that it was. The section reads:

One of the issues which is interfering with your workplace relations at the moment is your keeness to lodge formal complaints. I want to create an environment where you feel able to follow the whole process laid down in our policy and which is the problem solving process that we generally follow in our day-to-day lives.  That is, to talk about the issues with which you are having trouble before escalating the issue and lodging a formal complaint. I want to see less escalation of issues and more discussion and informal resolution. In order to make this happen, I am setting out some steps I want you to follow – some boundaries.

If something is troubling you in the workplace, you should firstly consider addressing the issue with the staff member in question. If this is not appropriate or does not resolve the issue, you must make an appointment with me and I want you to do this at an early stage. Your most recent complaint alleged numerous incidences of bullying by Louise, but none of these were substantiated.  Instead, it was found that most of the issues you raised were issues appropriately resolved by the immediate manager – that is me. I can't resolve issues if I don't know about them. I could have discussed these with you had you come to me about them.[107]

  1. [122]
    Ms Goddard asked Ms Nicholas about the email sent on 29 May 2019 and why it was acted on as a complaint.  Ms Goddard put it to Ms Nicholas that the email did not state that it was a complaint and said that it was just expressing her feelings.  She asked if Ms Nicholas thought to speak to Ms Goddard about the email before treating it as a complaint.  Ms Nicholas said that she took the email to be a complaint and something she needed to follow up.

Look, it was a matter brought to my attention in writing, that was serious in nature. I took it as a complaint and I think it was perfectly appropriate to do so and it was perfectly appropriate to investigate it.[108]

  1. [123]
    Ms Nicholas said that she decided the outcome of the complaint or concern raised by Ms Goddard by viewing the diary, the complaint made by Ms Goddard, the response provided by Ms Hedges and the information provided by another staff member.  Ms Nicholas said that she found on the balance of probabilities that the complaint wasn't substantiated and that it was a genuinely neutral interaction.[109]
  1. [124]
    The Respondent believes the lack of judgement shown by Ms Goddard in escalating the interaction as a matter worthy of reporting to Ms Nicholas is telling.  Firstly, a key concern underpinning the PIP at the outset was the escalation of tension between Ms Goddard and Ms Hedges, caused in part by Ms Goddard's propensity to raise formal complaints about Ms Hedges which were later found to be minor or unsubstantiated. The Respondent says that this was not conducive to harmonious employee relations in a small working environment and was a part of what was raised in the August 2018 meeting prior to the informal performance improvement meetings.[110]  Secondly, this issue had been targeted by the further training provided to Ms Goddard, and that only one day before the complaint was made, Ms Goddard had said she had found the 'Navigating the Workplace' training to be helpful.[111]    The Respondent also says that the recent complaint regarding Ms Hawker had led to Ms Nicholas reinforcing her expectations of respectful and professional communication in the workplace.
  1. [125]
    Ms Goddard was asked if she had paused to consider the effect raising her complaints may have had on the staff involved, including Ms Hedges and was asked if with the benefit of some distance of time now, whether sending that email was helpful in re-establishing positive relationships with Ms Hedges.

[MS GODDARD] Yes.

 

[MS MARR]  In what way would you say it was helpful?---

 

[MS GODDARD] Well, it would [indistinct] show Louise that pa-passing comments that have nothing to do with her, aren't relevant to why she needed to know where Lance was.

 

[MS MARR]  And you thought that would help mend your relationship, or create a more positive relationship with Ms Hedges?---

 

[MS GODDARD] Well, it would – it would just remind her that she has nothing to do with L—Lance's movements.

 

[MS MARR]  And you wanted Ms Nicholas to go and tell her – that -that's why you sent the email?---

 

[MS GODDARD] Well, I want – I – Just sent the email to flag with Ms Nicholas what had occurred.  I wasn't making a complaint. I was just rai ---[112]

  1. [126]
    The Respondent says that the above exchange is concerning as it demonstrates that even with the benefit of time and hindsight, Ms Goddard has shown a complete lack of insight into the impact of her own behaviour in the workplace and the absence of any genuine willingness to change. The Respondent further points to Ms Goddard's evidence regarding her unwillingness to listen to the advice of Penny Gordon on managing the interpersonal conflict with Ms Hedges.[113]
  1. [127]
    In her closing submissions Ms Goddard maintained her position that she was justified in not taking into account recommendations given by Ms Gordon to improve her communication with Ms Hedges. Ms Goddard said that she believed that Ms Gordon was not independent as she had provided vicarious trauma training to staff of LAQ staff. However I note Ms Goddard also stated that in September 2018, she commenced seeing a counsellor through Optum.  This is also a service provided by LAQ.
  1. [128]
    The allegation concerning Ms Hedges was found to be substantiated on the balance of probabilities. In summary, the disciplinary finding as to the particulars of the Allegation regarding Ms Hedges were:
  • The enquiries made by Ms Nicholas in relation to the matters raised by Ms Goddard's 29 May 2019 email were reasonable and appropriate;
  • Ms Goddard's interaction with Ms Hedges on 29 May 2019 were found to be a genuinely neutral interaction and did not warrant the lodgement of an informal written complaint;
  • as to Ms Goddard's formal complaint against Ms Hedges of 15 May 2017, the matters found to be substantiated were also found to be minor in nature and indicative of a breakdown of the professional working relationship between the applicant and Ms Hedges at the time;
  • the recommended remedial action in respect of this complaint had been a mediation, but Ms Goddard had indicated that she did not wish to participate because she considered that everything had 'settled down';
  • Ms Goddard had since made two further formal complaints against Ms Hedges of 9 July 2018 and 7 January 2019, and both these were found to be not substantiated;
  • the making of the 29 May 2019 complaint was an unnecessary escalation, had caused Ms Hedges distress, reasonably posed a risk to the safety, health and welfare of a co-worker, and was not conducive to meeting the expected performance outcomes; and
  • Ms Goddard had completed Code of Conduct training and Navigating the Workplace training and was therefore aware of her obligations in relation to her employment and the expected standards.[114]

Ms Goddard's efforts to build relationships in the workplace

  1. [129]
    Ms Goddard agreed that by April 2019, her relationship with other staff had improved. Ms Goddard said that she was making morning tea to bring in once a fortnight.  Ms Hedges recalled Ms Goddard bringing something in on occasion.[115] Ms Nicholas recalled Ms Goddard once bringing a cheesecake to work. 

Training to support Ms Goddard to build workplace relationships and improve communication with colleagues

  1. [130]
    Ms Goddard recalled taking some time off work due to illness in April 2019.  At this stage she had not completed some training related to her identified areas for improvement either because it had not been organised or she had been ill.[116]
  1. [131]
    Ms Goddard's PIP was extended so that the training could be arranged and LAQ provided a further six sessions with the external counsellor. Ms Goddard thought that the further sessions with the counsellor were in relation to 'ongoing harassment from Louise Hedges' rather than being connected to the PIP process.[117]

Consideration regarding Allegation 1

  1. [132]
    The evidence before me demonstrates that despite ongoing support, counselling and a clear set of outcomes expected of Ms Goddard in the PIP, she was unable to meet the requirements of her role as it pertained to communication with colleagues at work.
  1. [133]
    Ms Goddard admits some of the behaviours but attempts to either justify them or explain them by way of providing context, however none of the justifications, explanations or context offered in Ms Goddard's evidence or during the hearing persuade me that it was not fair or reasonable to substantiate the allegation.
  1. [134]
    Ms Goddard was provided with comprehensive feedback, guidance and training to understand the standard required of her and what needed to change to ensure that her communication with colleagues was appropriate.
  1. [135]
    During the hearing, it became clear that Ms Goddard does not accept that her behaviours continued to be problematic. Further, Ms Goddard does not appear to have reflected on the situation and acknowledged that her choices and actions had the capacity to cause distress to others and undermine her ability to get along with others and demonstrate appropriate communication with administration staff.
  1. [136]
    I also note that there was no attempt made by the Respondent to suggest that others were without fault with regard to communication in the workplace.  To this end, I do not accept that Ms Goddard was 'set up to fail' by having to get along with people who were not expected to get along with her.   There was clearly an expectation that all members of the workplace would comply with the required standard and that where appropriate, actions were taken to address the behaviour of others and in fact to investigate concerns or complaints made by Ms Goddard.
  1. [137]
    The relevant sections of the Code of Conduct provide:

1.5 Demonstrate a high standard of workplace behaviour and personal conduct

We have a responsibility to always conduct and present ourselves in a professional manner, and to demonstrate respect for all persons, whether fellow employees, clients or members of the public.

We will:

  1. treat co-workers, clients and members of the public with courtesy and respect, be appropriate in our relationships with them, and recognise that others have the right to hold views which may differ from our own;
  2. ensure our conduct reflects our commitment to a workplace that is inclusive and free from harassment;
  3. ensure our fitness for duty, and the safety, health and welfare of ourselves and others in the workplace, whether co-workers or clients.

…

3.1 Commit to our roles in public service

Our role is to undertake our duties, and to give effect to the policies of the elected government, regardless of its political complexion.

We will:

…

  1. adhere to the policies, organisational values and organisation documents of our employing agency.
  1. [138]
    With regard to cl 3.1 of the Code of Conduct, the LAQ Workplace Behaviours policy relevantly states:

 Employees will:

  • share the responsibility for maintaining acceptable standards of workplace behaviour by adopting high standards of personal behaviour and accepting the rights of others to work in a harmonious environment;
  • treat other employees and clients with sensitivity, courtesy and respect;
  • speak out if they see instances of inappropriate behaviour (silence can be interpreted as condoning the behaviour);
  • refuse to participate in behaviour which may harass, discriminate or be offensive to others; and
  • comply with the relevant legislation.

Acceptable behaviour:

All LAQ staff members should be aware of their own behaviour and how it impacts on others. While it is recognised that personalities, characters, and management styles are different, the expectation is that all staff should approach their working life in a way that is acceptable to others through applying principles such as:

 

  • working cooperatively with other sin order to achieve objectives;

…

  • giving and receiving constructive feedback, that is evidence based and that is delivered in an appropriate manner;
  • using understanding of other people's perspectives to help reach agreement;
  • establishing good working relationships, and
  • being respectful, professional and courteous.

 

  1. [139]
    When considering all of the evidence before me and the relevant parts of the Code of Conduct and the LAQ Workplace Behaviours Policy, I find the allegation is substantiated and that Ms Goddard has breached s 187 (1)(f)(ii) of the PS Act in that she breached cl 1.5 and 3.1 of the Code of Conduct. 

Allegation 2: Task Management and Communication with the Family Lawyers

  1. [140]
    The Respondent submits that the performance issues which were subject of Allegation 2 were raised with Ms Goddard at each of the PIP meetings, in particular the meeting on 14 March 2019 and that each are referred to in the show cause letter.
  1. [141]
    Ms Goddard says that after each PIP meeting she felt it was becoming apparent to her

that the bar especially on Marita's end kept getting higher and higher due to her unrealistic demands, her attitude towards me and her inability to communicate was making me feel very anxious and stressed out as they kept reiterating to me that is not what was happening.[118]

  1. [142]
    The summaries of the PIP meetings on 14 March 2019, 10 April 2019 and 29 May 2019 which were emailed to Ms Goddard were also attached to the first show cause letter.[119] The Respondent submits that Ms Goddard has raised no issue with the accuracy of the written summaries when they were provided nor in her response.  Ms Goddard did not raise any issues with the content of these meeting notes when cross-examining Ms Nicholas.
  1. [143]
    I note that at the PIP meeting on 10 April 2019, Ms Goddard raised a concern that the written summaries seemed more detailed than what was discussed. The explanation provided to Ms Goddard in response to this concern is included in those PIP notes. There is no evidence that Ms Goddard did not accept that explanation.[120]
  1. [144]
    Ms Nicholas says that throughout the PIP process, Ms Kitchiner sent emails to her in which she identified issues and/or concerns with Ms Goddard's performance.[121]  Ms Nicholas says that Mr Rundle seemed reluctant to provide written feedback and work examples, however, he outlined his concerns in their meetings.  Mr Rundle's concerns included:
  1. Ms Goddard not communicating the progress of tasks;
  2. Grammatical and spelling errors in her work;
  3. Ms Goddard not communicating when leaving the office;
  4. He was concerned how Ms Goddard would cope if he and Ms Kitchiner both had a full file load;
  5. Ms Goddard lets extraneous matters divert her attention from her work.[122]
  1. [145]
    Ms Nicholas says that where appropriate, she raised any relevant feedback from Ms Kitchiner or Mr Rundle with Ms Goddard during regular meetings with her.[123]
  1. [146]
    Ms Kitchiner's statement outlines in detail the progress of the PIP, Ms Goddard's performance of tasks during the PIP and the feedback provided.[124]  Ms Goddard did not challenge Ms Kitchiner's evidence expect in relation to communication between the two of them as discussed at [154] to [161].
  1. [147]
    Ms Nicholas's statement provides detailed information about what was discussed at each of the meetings.[125] 

 

 

Evidence at hearing regarding Allegation 2

  1. [148]
    One of the areas for improvement identified for Ms Goddard was 'task management'.  The expected outcome in relation to this area for improvement was 'Administrative tasks will be kept up to date and completed, pursuant to the file management standards'.[126]
  1. [149]
    Ms Goddard agreed that she was allocated work by Mr Rundle and Ms Kitchiner.  Ms Goddard said that she could not recall if she was allocated more work by Ms Kitchiner and could not recall raising a concern that Ms Kitchiner monopolised her time.[127]
  1. [150]
    Ms Goddard agreed that Ms Kitchiner gave her more dictation work than Mr Rundle and that a lot of the work she did for Mr Rundle was the preparation of precedent or template letters.[128]
  1. [151]
    Ms Goddard said that she did some of the management of Mr Rundle's diary and that the work allocated to her by Mr Rundle would take her three or four hours a day.[129]
  1. [152]
    Ms Nicholas agreed with Ms Goddard that none of the other lawyers made complaints about Ms Goddard's work on their files.[130] Ms Nicholas also agreed that while Mr Rundle had complained, he had not made a formal complaint.
  1. [153]
    Ms Goddard's statement says that Ms Kitchiner would actively avoid speaking to her 'on all accounts', that she would drop files on her desk after hours and would spend the whole day with her door shut.  Ms Goddard said that this was off putting to her as she felt it created a barrier and gave the impression that she did not want to be interrupted.  Ms Goddard says that it became apparent to her that as Ms Kitchiner "was not obligated or restrained by the PIP, she could treat me however she wanted which is why some days I met with her and some days I didn't.[131]
  1. [154]
    Ms Goddard asked Ms Kitchiner about these matters during cross-examination.  Ms Kitchiner denied ignoring Ms Goddard's attempts to communicate. Ms Kitchiner said that her door was shut because she was often on the telephone and there were times when she was trying to focus on getting various work tasks done, however that didn't mean she was refusing to communicate with her.[132]
  1. [155]
    Ms Kitchiner's statement also addresses this matter and she states that at all times, she was using an office with a glass front so you could see if she was on the telephone or in the middle of a task. Ms Kitchiner says that she notes that Mr Rundle often closes his door when he is on the telephone and then leaves it closed.  Ms Kitchiner says that if she needs to talk to Mr Rundle and he has his door shut, she will peek through the frosted glass to see if he is busy and if he wasn't, would tap on the glass.  Ms Kitchiner said that she couldn't understand why Ms Goddard wouldn't do the same if she needed to speak with her.  Ms Kitchiner recalled one email from Ms Goddard indicating she wanted to speak with her about an issue and she ensured that she made herself available as soon as practically possible.[133]
  1. [156]
    In Ms Kitchiner's statement she said she certainly could not treat Ms Goddard any way she wanted.  Ms Kitchiner said that Ms Goddard's work performance issues caused tension and there were several occasions where Ms Kitchiner talked to Ms Nicholas to make sure that she wasn't saying anything to Ms Goddard that wasn't appropriate or wasn't her role to say.[134]
  1. [157]
    Ms Goddard describes the week of 20 May 2019 to 24 May 2019.  She says that during this week Ms Kitchiner was on leave and advised she would be working from home but would come in at some point.  Ms Goddard says that on 21 May 2019, Ms Kitchiner came to the office and that there was an interaction where Ms Kitchiner would not let her finish speaking and that she clenched her fist at Ms Goddard's eye level.  Ms Goddard said that she reported the incident to Ms Newton and was given strategies on how to deal with it if it happened again.   Ms Goddard said that in her PIP meeting on 28 May 2019 she advised Ms Nicholas and Mr Castle that the incident had occurred.  Ms Goddard described issues she had with Ms Kitchiner not passing on information about a file to her and often leaving things to the last minute.  Ms Goddard said that over the weekend of 25 and 26 May 2019, she was very anxious that she would be put in a situation where Ms Kitchiner would berate her if the file did not arrive on time for court.[135]
  1. [158]
    Ms Kitchiner says that she does not accept that she often left things to the last minute. Ms Kitchiner says that she had a complex caseload and the PIP process put a lot of pressure on her in terms of the amount of documentation and evidence she was required to produce.  Ms Kitchiner said that she gave Ms Goddard as much notice as possible regarding what tasks were required and by when.  Ms Kitchiner said that around May 2019, she had been under a significant amount of pressure with respect to case work commitments in addition to providing feedback and assistance to Ms Goddard as part of the PIP process. Ms Kitchiner said that Ms Goddard did not raise any concerns with her regarding the week of 20-24 May 2019 with her and that she has never berated Ms Goddard.[136]
  1. [159]
    Ms Kitchiner recalled attending the office on 21 May 2019.  Ms Kitchiner recalled that at some stage during the conversation she had her arm at her side and clenched her fist while it was at her side (not at Ms Goddard's eye level) as she was frustrated at the situation and having to read large volumes of documents while she was on leave.  Ms Kitchiner says that she immediately released her hand as soon as she realised that she had clenched it.  Ms Kitchiner said that she was very conscious in her dealings with Ms Goddard not to interact in a way that could be perceived as aggressive or intimidatory and that she was aware that Ms Goddard had felt that she had been bullied by others in the past.[137]
  1. [160]
    Ms Nicholas says that she took appropriate steps to investigate the complaint about Ms Kitchiner's behaviours when it was raised with her.  Ms Nicholas said that at no time did Ms Goddard state that Ms Kitchiner's fist was at eye level.[138]
  1. [161]
    Ms Kitchiner recalled discussing the complaint about her behaviour.  Ms Kitchiner said that she does not recall denying clenching her fist, but that she strongly denied that she was threatening towards Ms Goddard or cutting her off. Ms Kitchiner said that she expressed her frustration about the situation and that she felt Ms Goddard was making excuses rather than genuinely tyring to meet the expectations of the role.[139]
  1. [162]
    Ms Nicholas says that throughout the process, both she and Mr Castle agreed that Ms Kitchiner could be difficult to communicate with at times, however she does not recall a comment to the effect that it was Ms Kitchiner who had the communication problem. Ms Nicholas says that on the contrary, she reminded Ms Goddard more than once that it was her job to support the lawyers and working for more than one lawyer meant adapting to their individual styles. Ms Nicholas recalled during the PIP process discussing the importance for Ms Goddard to recognise that people communicate differently, and that she need to adapt to the different communication styles.[140]
  1. [163]
    Ms Goddard asked Ms Nicholas if she recalled Ms Goddard informing her during the PIP meeting on 28 May 2019 that Ms Kitchiner had refused to communicate with her and that she had to get Mr Rundle to get in contact with her. Ms Nicholas agreed that this had been raised with her.[141]
  1. [164]
    Ms Goddard asked Ms Kitchiner if Ms Goddard had made genuine attempts to build and sustain a relationship with her.  Ms Kitchiner said that she would not call them genuine.  Ms Kitchiner said that she thought they both tried to work with each and that she thought they were both very different people.  Ms Goddard asked Ms Kitchiner if she used that as a reason not to interact with her.  Ms Kitchiner replied that she certainly interacted with Ms Goddard and referred to emails and various ways they communicated:

[Ms Goddard]  That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about building and sustaining a relationship within the office?

 

[Ms Kitchiner]  I had a professional relationship with you.

 

[Ms Goddard]  Yes?

 

[Ms Kitchiner]  It didn't need to be any more than that.[142]

Respondent submissions regarding Allegation 2:

  1. [165]
    The Respondent points to the feedback provided at the 29 May 2019 PIP meeting and says three and a half months after the PIP process had commenced and after regular feedback and training, Ms Goddard was still deficient in respect of the key performance areas of task management and communication with family lawyers.[143]
  1. [166]
    An email from Ms Nicholas to Mr Rundle and Ms Kitchiner informing them that the PIP process is ending and that Ms Nicholas requires them to provide her with detailed feedback about Ms Goddard's performance, particularly in relation to communication with them, communication with stakeholders and clients and her task management.[144]  Written notes taken at the meeting, that cover a range of feedback including that Ms Kitchiner was 'close to nervous breakdown' and that she felt as though Ms Goddard was leaving her work until just before performance reviews.[145]
  1. [167]
    Following the meeting, Ms Kitchiner sent an email to Ms Nicholas including detailed notes regarding Ms Goddard's performance.[146]  It is clear from this note, that there remained significant concerns with Ms Goddard's task management. Ms Kitchiner acknowledges that Ms Goddard had possibly had a greater than normal workload over the previous two weeks and that while Ms Kitchiner didn't think the workload was excessive, it did require Ms Goddard to be organised.  In summary, the note states that: filing is not done on a regular basis; the need for micro-managing and continual chasing up for tasks to be moved forwards; managing the copying of subpoenas for a matter; having dictation completed in a timely manner (table of items and how long it took to complete them included); continuing minor grammatical errors in the file notes and that communication continues to be difficult.
  1. [168]
    It is clear from the material that there were ongoing and significant difficulties in both the communication with Ms Kitchiner and task management.  Ms Kitchiner's statement for this proceeding outlines what I consider to be her genuine and diligent involvement in Ms Goddard's PIP. It can be seen from her note taking and reflection that Ms Kitchiner took the process very seriously and was seeking to ensure Ms Goddard was provided with detailed feedback and a fair opportunity to understand the issues.
  1. [169]
    Ms Kitchiner explained in her affidavit that she found dealing with the process very stressful.

The informal and formal management process of Ms Goddard placed a significant amount of pressure on me.  I was hypervigilant around the need to provide a clear and transparent process. I was concerned that whilst previously Mr Rundle would speak to me and make complaints about Ms Goddard's performance once the process became formal, his feedback became very general and reduced significantly. I was concerned that Ms Goddard would take this as my making a personal attack upon her and that I was the only one with the concerns about her performance.

I was very conscious about recording my interactions with Ms Goddard.  I was concerned that she may make unfounded allegations about me to deflect from performance issues. I avoided interaction with her which couldn't be witnessed by a third party or documented.  This was why I preferred emailing Ms Goddard. I felt that this approach meant that if there was an allegation against me by Ms Goddard, I could refer back to my emails to establish that there were clear expectations set and timeframes for the task.[147] 

Consideration re: Allegation 2

  1. [170]
    Allegation 2 was found to be substantiated.  In summary, the findings for Allegation 2 were:
  • The PIP process was extended twice, and training and additional counselling support was provided, to allow Ms Goddard every opportunity to improve her performance and put her training into practice;
  • at each PIP meeting, Ms Goddard was given feedback as to her performance during the intervening period, and an opportunity to respond. The applicant was provided with summaries of what was discussed;
  • during the PIP process, Ms Goddard was provided with the following training: grammar basis online course, navigating the workplace, shadowing and refresher training on LSO duties/file management provided by Ms Chapman; effective time management and planning provided by Julie Yugay;
  • during the PIP process, daily meetings between Ms Goddard and Ms Kitchiner were implemented in response to a specific request by Ms Goddard, but notwithstanding this, the applicant cancelled some of these meetings and failed to attend;
  • as an LSO to Ms Kitchiner, it was Ms Goddard's role to support Ms Kitchiner to complete tasks in the order and within the timeframes set my Ms Kitchiner;
  • as part of the PIP, Ms Goddard had been requested to raise with the family lawyers if she was unable to complete a task within the allocated timeframe, but she had failed to do.
  • it was found that Ms Goddard had not always been upfront and honest, and proactive in keeping Ms Kitchiner informed of the progress of tasks.  A number of examples were provide which had been addressed in the PIP meetings.
  • it was also found that Ms Goddard had failed to complete allocated tasks within appropriate timeframes, and an example was given of significant delays with timely completion of dictation, citing 12 instances in May 2019;
  • Mr Rundle had provided feedback that he had very little file work other than standard file openings, precedent letters and scheduling appointments, and that he attended to many of his time consuming tasks himself as 'he finds this quicker'. However, he had expressed that he would have like to have seen better communication from the applicant about unfinished tasks and the progress of matters;
  • Ms Kitchiner had additional duties and responsibilities to manage as an ICL, as well as her family lawyer caseload, and it was found that the applicant had failed to provide her with the requisite support and to build positive trust in her working relationship with Ms Kitchiner; and
  • the effect of these performance failures was that it created unnecessary and unsustainable duplication and intensification of work for the family lawyers (particularly Ms Kitchiner).
  1. [171]
    In finding that Ms Goddard was liable to discipline pursuant to s 187(1)(a) of the PS Act in that she had performed her duties carelessly, incompletely or inefficiently, Mr Reilly found:

In the above circumstances I am of the view that, despite reasonable and proactive efforts on the part of LAQ to facilitate the implementation of reasonable and appropriate measures with a view to resolving the interpersonal difficulties between yourself and Ms Kitchiner, your ongoing failure to fully engage with such measures and meet the inherent requirements of your role has had the opposite effect, resulting in the further deterioration of that working relationship.  I am also of the view that you have failed in one of the most important requirements of your position, and this is to provide timely and appropriate support to your supervising lawyers to enable them to do their work.[148]

  1. [172]
    It is very clear that Ms Goddard was well aware of the expectation of her with regard to the parts of the PIP relevant to Allegation 2.  Ms Goddard was provided with regular feedback and support relevant to these areas of her performance.  At the conclusion of the PIP process, the show cause process provided detailed particulars regarding the allegation, an opportunity for Ms Goddard to respond, detailed consideration of her response and reasons for making the disciplinary finding.
  1. [173]
    The PIP process was extensively documented and I have had the benefit of reading that material.  I note Ms Goddard's submissions and evidence about what she sees as her attempts to build and sustain a relationship with Ms Kitchiner and what I would describe as the ongoing difficulties in communication between the two of them.  I also note that a range of strategies and support were put in place to facilitate communication between the two women.  The eventual finding made by Mr Reilly was that despite reasonable and appropriate measures being facilitated to improve the relationship, Ms Goddard's ongoing failure to engage with such measures actually caused a deterioration in the relationship.  Mr Reilly was not cross-examined regarding this finding and I find myself agreeing with his assessment of the situation.  For whatever reason, Ms Goddard appeared unable to accept Ms Kitchiner's preferred ways of working. It seems to me that it was Ms Kitchiner who was taking steps to change her approach and showing a willingness to adopt different ways of communicating and that Ms Goddard was not demonstrating a willingness to do so herself.
  1. [174]
    Allegation two encompasses not only appropriate communication with the family lawyers but also Ms Goddard's work performance.  The tasks required of her and the requisite standard she was required to meet were clear.  Ms Goddard received regular feedback and gave evidence that she understood her role and what was required of her.  The communication issues that may have existed between Ms Goddard and Ms Kitchiner were not so dire that they serve to mitigate Ms Goddard's performance. 
  1. [175]
    Mr Reilly was the final decision maker in this matter and made a range of findings following the show cause process.  As I note above Ms Goddard did not cross-examine Mr Reilly during the hearing and there is no evidence before me that would serve to displace his finding that the PIP process was properly conducted and that at the conclusion of the PIP, Ms Goddard had 'failed in one of the most important requirements of [her] position, and this is to provide timely and appropriate support to [her] supervising lawyers to enable them to do their work'.
  1. [176]
    On the basis of the extensive material available to me and the evidence I have heard during the proceeding, I am satisfied that Ms Goddard has breached s 187 (1)(a) of the PS Act by performing her duties as an LSO carelessly, incompetently or inefficiently.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

  1. [177]
    Ms Goddard says that the evidence demonstrates that only Ms Kitchiner had complaints about her work and Ms Kitchiner is only one of five lawyers.  Ms Goddard made reference to the case of Dr Lucy Zhao v The University of Technology Sydney,[149] in which Dr Zhao argued that in dismissing her, the university only had concern for her performance related to 40 percent of her workload.  In that matter, part of the reasoning of the Fair Work Commission in determining that the dismissal was unfair was that even if it was accepted the Dr Zhao was underperforming in the area of her work that was the focus of the PIP, she was performing satisfactorily with regard to the other 60 percent of her work.  Ms Goddard said that LAQ failed to take into account that only one lawyer complained about her work and that this meant she was only underperforming in one section of her work, which she said was about 25 percent of her workload.
  1. [178]
    I do not think that Ms Goddard's situation can be compared to that of Dr Zhao. The evidence demonstrated that Mr Rundle had also raised concerns about Ms Goddard's work.  Further to this, while it was uncontroversial that Ms Goddard had undertaken some administrative support work for the other lawyers, it is clear that she was employed to support the family lawyers.  Ms Nicholas said that Ms Goddard was told to focus on her work for the family lawyers throughout the PIP.  I do not accept that the work undertaken for Ms Kitchiner and Mr Rundle only accounted for 25 percent of Ms Goddard's workload.  Ms Kitchiner's feedback about Ms Goddard's work was considered and comprehensive.  I find that it was fair for it to be relied upon in finding that Ms Goddard had not met the requirements of the PIP.
  1. [179]
    There were a number of occasions where Ms Goddard appeared to be giving evidence in her final submissions.  To the extent that her remarks mirrored or supported her statement and other evidence in this matter, I have considered these. 
  1. [180]
    In her statement for these proceedings, Ms Goddard referred to comments she says were made about her by Ms Nicholas.  As they do not relate to the two allegations subject of the show cause process, I have captured them below.
  1. [181]
    Ms Nicholas was asked about a comment she made to Mr Prizeman on 3 June 2019 'ding dong the witch is dead'.  Ms Nicholas's evidence was that she did say those words and that she acknowledged that they were 'poor form'.[150]  Under cross-examination, Ms Nicholas said that she did not normally talk to colleagues this way and agreed that she regretted making the comment.

[MS NICHOLAS] You're probably aware that that's a quote from a movie, the Wizard of Oz. It was said to Mr Prizeman in what I thought was confidence, but someone else overheard it, and it was really a reflection of the relief I was feeling on the day that there was finally some give in the situation in the office. It wasn't about you. It wasn't – it was really a reflection of my relief and not an appropriate way to speak, but sometimes that's the way lawyers vent. Particularly criminal lawyers, we tend to use a bit of dark humour. But the comment was made.[151]

  1. [182]
    Ms Goddard says that the 'Ding dong the witch is dead' comment that Ms Nicholas agrees she made, is evidence that Ms Nicholas was not an impartial party to the process. I found Ms Nicholas' evidence with regard to the comment genuine and forthright. There is no evidence that Ms Nicholas was not an impartial party during the process. Ms Nicholas accepts that her comments were not appropriate. 
  1. [183]
    Ms Goddard's statement referred to the impact that being told that Ms Nicholas had referred to her as a 'walrus' had on her. Ms Nicholas denied calling Ms Goddard a walrus.[152]  Ms Aspinall-Clarke was asked if she recalled telling Ms Goddard about the walrus comment in February 2019 but Ms Aspinall-Clarke said that she did not recall telling her in February 2019 but recalled discussing it later. It was unclear when it was discussed but it appeared to be after Ms Aspinall-Clarke had received a redacted affidavit from Crown Law for these proceedings.[153]
  1. [184]
    With regard to Ms Hawker, Ms Goddard's final submissions were that no previous people in Ms Hawker's role made complaints about her.  She said that the comments made to Ms Hawker were made outside of work and should be given little weight as reason to terminate her. Ms Goddard also said that the previous LSO's did not require her to attend to their duties and they worked the same hours as Ms Hawker.  It appeared that Ms Goddard agrees making the remarks about Ms Hawker and in some way thinks they are justified.
  1. [185]
    With regard to her completion of work tasks, in her final submission, Ms Goddard said that she believed she made a genuine attempt to complete her work on time.  She said that she believed she was not given enough time to apply the training and improve her skills as the PIP meetings were every two weeks.[154] For the reasons provided earlier, I have determined that the PIP process was fair.
  1. [186]
    The decision maker for the show cause disciplinary process including the final disciplinary outcome of termination of employment was Anthony Reilly, the then Chief Executive Officer of LAQ.
  1. [187]
    Ms Goddard said that LAQ failed to consider other disciplinary action which could be taken against her other than termination.[155]
  1. [188]
    It was Mr Reilly who determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegations were substantiated and that Ms Goddard was liable to discipline. Specifically:
  1. (a)
    In respect of Allegation 1, Ms Goddard was liable to discipline pursuant to section 187(f)(ii) of the PS Act, on the grounds that she contravened without reasonable excuse, a standard of conduct applying to her under an approved code of conduct under the Public Service Ethics Act 1994.

 

  1. (b)
    In respect of Allegation 2, Ms Goddard was liable to discipline pursuant to section 187(1)(a) of the PS Act, as she had performed her duties carelessly, incompetently or inefficiently.[156]
  1. [189]
    As discussed above, I have found that it was reasonable for Mr Reilly to determine that the allegations were substantiated.  On the evidence before me, I find that both of the grounds for discipline have been made out.
  1. [190]
    Mr Reilly's statement for these proceedings says that he made the decision to terminate Ms Goddard's employment taking into account all of the material before him, including Ms Goddard's responses to his correspondence during the discipline process. He set out his reasons for deciding to terminate Ms Goddard's employment in the penalty letter.
  1. (a)
    I did not consider that the status of Ms Goddard's friendship with Ms Hawker could have any bearing on the proposed disciplinary action as Ms Hawker is no longer an LAQ employee.
  2. (b)
    Despite LAQ facilitating the implementation of various reasonable and appropriate measures over a lengthy period to assist with resolving interpersonal difficulties, Ms Goddard continued to fail to fully engage with these measures.  This failure further enhanced the deterioration of the interpersonal relationships to the point where the situation posed a risk to the health, safety and welfare of her co-workers. I was of the view that LAQ had made reasonable efforts to manage Ms Goddard's performance and interpersonal conflicts to improve outcomes for her and other staff, to no avail.
  3. (c)
    The loss of trust and confidence in Ms Goddard's ability to carry out her duties to the standards expected of an LSO was further impacted by the inconsistency of her explanations for her performance and conduct and inability to take ownership of the relevant conduct.
  4. (d)
    I took into consideration Ms Goddard's length of service and overall work record and concluded that those matters were not sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, the loss of trust and confidence and the risk that ongoing deficiencies in Ms Goddard's performance would have.  I further found that Ms Goddard's length of service and interaction with Code of Conduct training meant that she should have been aware of the standards expected of her as an LSO.
  5. (e)
    I formed the view that there was no appropriate penalty. Termination was reasonable and appropriate given Ms Goddard's demonstrated inability to build and sustain positive and professional relations and perform the inherent requirements of her role to a satisfactory standard.[157]
  1. [191]
    Mr Reilly was not cross-examined by Ms Goddard and his evidence was tendered by consent. The outcome of this is that despite submitting in her application for reinstatement that the facts complained of would not usually warrant actual dismissal, Ms Goddard has not availed herself of the opportunity to put this to the decision maker.
  1. [192]
    Mr Reilly said that he considered the types of disciplinary action that were available to him to take, including actions other than termination of employment.[158]
  1. [193]
    Ms Goddard had proposed an alternative penalty in her second show cause response, that is, to establish a dedicated grants officer role for her to undertake.  Mr Reilly said that he did not consider this to be a viable alternative given that:
  1. (a)
    there was no established position of funding for such a role, nor was such a position planned, or possible for the foreseeable future;
  2. (b)
    following the restructure of the LAQ Grants function, individual grants officers located within regional offices no longer had responsibility/oversight of the processing of grants for their own office or the local preferred suppliers;
  3. (c)
    given Ms Goddard had been unable to meet the required standards as an LSO, despite the provision of support over a significant period, I did not have trust and confidence that she would be able to meet the standards required within the context of the LAQ Grants function; and
  4. (d)
    I had lost trust and confidence in Ms Goddard's ability to build and sustain positive, professional and courteous relationships, in a manner which ensured the safety, health and welfare of her co-workers.[159]
  1. [194]
    Mr Reilly also said that he carefully considered Ms Goddard's suggestion of a mediation with Ms Hedges.  However, Mr Reilly was of the view that there had been a complete breakdown of the professional working relationship between Ms Goddard and Ms Hedges and that resolution of the issues between them was not a likely or possible outcome of mediation, given the loss of trust and confidence between them.[160]
  1. [195]
    I have considered all of the material exhibited to Mr Reilly's statement:
  • Briefing note dated 31 May 2019.[161]

 

  • Suspension letter dated 31 May 2019.[162]
  • Briefing note dated 11 June 2019.[163]
  • First Show Cause Notice and Attachments.[164]
  • Response to First Show Cause Notice dated 1 July 2019.[165]
  • Briefing note dated 29 July 2019.[166]
  • Second Show Cause Notice dated 29 July 2019.[167]
  • Response to Second Show Cause Notice dated 23 August 2019.[168]
  • Briefing note dated 12 September 2019.[169]
  • Penalty Letter dated 12 September 2019.[170]
  1. [196]
    The material listed above provides a comprehensive and detailed account of the process.  I find that the matters raised by Ms Goddard in her show cause responses have been carefully considered and responded to on each occasion.
  1. [197]
    The Respondent submits that the Commission should be slow to disrupt the autonomy of the decision-making process in circumstances where the decision maker has exercised his discretion after proper consideration and on the grounds set out in the penalty letter.
  1. [198]
    Further, the Respondent says that the Commission should consider that in all the circumstances, there was no viable alternative to termination. The circumstances, the Respondent submits, included the following
  • Ms Goddard was fully aware of the requirements of her role and gave evidence of this;[171]
  • Ms Goddard understood the requirements as set out in the position description and was familiar with and understood the detailed requirements set out in the file management standards;[172]
  • prior to the PIP process, Ms Goddard had already been involved in regular, informal performance management meetings from August to December 2018 where clear feedback was provided and areas for improvement were identified.
  • the PIP set out in unambiguous detail the five areas for improvement, the standard required of an LSO, the actions to be taken, and the expected outcome;
  • Ms Goddard was involved in setting the terms of the PIP and had the benefit of legal advice before doing so;
  • during the PIP review, Ms Goddard participated in approximately fortnightly performance review meetings and at those meetings the expectations of her role were reinforced and Ms Goddard received feedback regarding how she was tracking against the improvement areas identified in the PIP;
  • despite some variable improvement during the implementation of the PIP, progress was not sustained;
  • at the final PIP review on 28 May 2019 there were still significant deficiencies in Ms Goddard's performance;
  • this was despite Ms Goddard being given the opportunity to undertake various training programs targeted at the areas of the PIP provided and funded by the Respondent;
  • the PIP was extended to 3 June 2019 with the objective of allowing Ms Goddard more time to put in place the skills training she had undertaken; and
  • despite all of this, Ms Goddard was almost entirely resistant to change.
  1. [199]
    The picture that emerged over the course of the hearing and in reviewing all of the witness statements and accompanying documents is that despite multiple interventions, support and detailed feedback, Ms Goddard was unable to meet the requirements of the PIP. 
  1. [200]
    Ms Goddard's questioning of several witnesses about whether she had been making morning tea or bringing in cheesecakes for morning tea demonstrates two things to me, the first is that Ms Goddard held a genuine and sincere belief that bringing the food for morning tea would improve her relationships with colleagues. However, the second thing it demonstrates is that Ms Goddard may have misunderstood that fundamentally, the communication and behaviour required of the PIP was with regard to every day workplace interactions and work related communication. All the cheesecake in the world won't improve workplace communications if the fundamental issues are not being addressed. 
  1. [201]
    While Ms Goddard's PIP did include a requirement for her to first raise issues with Ms Nicholas instead of raising a formal complaint, the support and intervention provided over time was also designed to help Ms Goddard to first understand what a genuine 'issue' was and to first reflect on matters before raising a complaint.  It seems to me that with regard to workplace interactions and communication, Ms Goddard was unable to apply self-reflection strategies and decide to either de-escalate or to not react to certain situations.
  1. [202]
    Ms Goddard's insistence on proving that the work calendar for 29 May 2019 showed that Mr Rundle was in the office demonstrates that she was not interested in considering whether she may have overreacted to a seemingly benign comment being made by Ms Hedges or that she was capable of accepting Ms Nicholas's consideration or analysis of the matter.  At the hearing, some 18 months after the events took place, Ms Goddard appears unable to look at how this interaction with Ms Hedges and the raising of concerns/complaint with Ms Nicholas reflected on her engagement with and success in achieving the aims and objectives of the PIP. 
  1. [203]
    While Ms Goddard focused on the relationship and communication issues she was experiencing with one of her supervisors, Ms Kitchiner, the evidence demonstrates that Ms Goddard's task management was not improving and that this was continuing to have a negative impact on Ms Kitchiner's capacity to do her work.
  1. [204]
    It is clear from the evidence before me that the ongoing issues with Ms Goddard's workplace behaviour were debilitating for the Rockhampton office.  It is notable that the suspension letter informed Ms Goddard that one of the reasons for her suspension was concern for the health and safety of others working in the office.
  1. [205]
    The Commission heard evidence from a number of witnesses regarding the impact of Ms Goddard's conduct on other staff in the Rockhampton workplace.
  1. [206]
    The detailed emails accounting for each PIP meeting demonstrate that hours and hours of work was being done by Ms Nicholas to manage the PIP and support Ms Goddard through the process. Ms Nicholas' statement for these proceedings detailed the impact on her as the PIP process was ending and the concern/complaint from Ms Goddard about Ms Hedges was made.[173]  She said that she felt she was in an untenable situation in respect of managing the work environment in the Rockhampton office.[174]  Ms Nicholas said, 'I felt like my office had imploded and that there was no way to fix the situation.'[175] Ms Nicholas referred to a particular day when she 'separately had Ms Hedges, Ms Hawker and Ms Kitchiner in her office crying as a result of the ongoing situation with Ms Goddard.' Ms Nicholas said that she had not carried a full file load for over two years and her stakeholder relationships were nearly non-existent due to the relentless amount of work required in managing Ms Goddard.[176]
  1. [207]
    Ms Nicholas said in her statement that she was often approached by other staff in the office who would tell her that when they engaged with Ms Goddard they felt like they were being scrutinised and everything they were saying was being noted by Ms Goddard. Ms Nicholas said that she also observed staff to be hesitant in engaging with Ms Goddard and Ms Nicholas got the impression they were cautions speaking around her.[177]
  1. [208]
    The evidence regarding the impact the process had on Ms Kitchiner is addressed above at [169].  Ms Nicholas also reflected on the impact the process was having on Ms Kitchiner.[178]
  1. [209]
    The evidence regarding the impact that the issues had on Ms Hedges is addressed in Ms Hedges' statement for this proceeding,[179] Ms Hedges' evidence is also addressed above at [103].
  1. [210]
    Ms Aspinall-Clarke gave evidence that she and Ms Goddard were very close friends.[180]  She said that she would not describe Ms Goddard as a person who was fairly sensitive or someone who would get over-run by her emotions.[181]  In answer to a question about whether Rockhampton LAQ office was a pleasant or an unpleasant place to work, Ms Aspinall-Clarke said 'unpleasant'.[182]
  1. [211]
    When asked if the tension in the office improved or deteriorated over the first six months of 2019, Ms Aspinall-Clarke said 'it improved after [Ms Goddard] had been put on leave with pay'.  When asked to elaborate on how it improved, Ms Aspinall-Clarke said,

[MS ASPINALL-CLARKE] That – like, there was less tension in the office, and that we could approach [Ms Kitchiner] and her – Steph's time wasn't consumed by dealing with the issues between Shelby and Louise all the time, which – and she was also able to take on crime files again, which, in my time at Legal Aid, she was just very consumed and unapproachable, really, because she was always stressed out over complaints being made by Louise and Shelby with each other.[183]

  1. [212]
    When asked about what the impact would be if Ms Goddard was to return to the Rockhampton office now, Ms Aspinall-Clarke said 'I think the office would go back to how it was, with all the tension, and it wouldn't be good for the office, especially in a small town when everyone talks and that, so it would be very uncomfortable.'[184]
  1. [213]
    I have considered Ms Goddard's submissions about the difficulties she may face in finding other work. However, I do not see that the hardship she may face while seeking other employment serves to displace the findings regarding her workplace communication and performance of her duties and the decision maker's assessment that termination was the disciplinary outcome of the process.
  1. [214]
    Ms Goddard was clearly informed that there were concerns with her performance and was initially taken through an informal process to address these concerns. The PIP process set out in comprehensive terms the expectations of her in performing her role.  A range of support and training was provided to Ms Goddard along the way and she had the benefit of detailed notes and regular updates and meetings with her supervisors and Ms Nicholas. When the situation required it, timelines were extended to provide Ms Nicholas with procedural fairness.  Ms Goddard provided responses throughout the show cause process and accessed legal advice.
  1. [215]
    In the circumstances and having considered all of the material, I find that the decision of Mr Reilly to terminate Ms Goddard's employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [216]
    The application for reinstatement is dismissed.

 

Footnotes

[1] Gold Coast District Health Service v Walker (2001) 168 QGIG 258, [259].

[2] Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 032, [69].

[3] Ibid at [71].

[4] Laegal v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2018] QIRC 136 at [63]-[65]

[5] The Respondent explains in their outline of argument:

  1. By s 21(1)(b) of the PS Act, read together with the Public Service Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 3 and Schedule 4, Legal Aid Queensland is declared to be a 'public service office'.
  2. By s 23 of the PS Act read together with the Public Service Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 3 and Schedule 4, s 3 and Schedule 4, ss 1, 3 and 4, the PS Act Chapter 6 applies to Legal Aid Queensland and is employees, including relevantly, ss 187 and 188.
  3. Further, by s 23 of the PS Act, read together with the Public Service Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 3 and Schedule 4, s 2, Legal Aid Queensland's chief executive officer is declared to be the head of the declared public service office.
  4. By the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) (PSE Act), s 2, read together with Public Sector Ethics Regulation 2010 (Qld), s 3 and the Schedule, Legal Aid Queensland is prescribed as a 'public service agency'.
  5. Accordingly, by the PSE Act ss11, 12B and 12H, the Code of Conduct applied to Legal Aid Queensland, and the applicant was bound to comply with it. [footnotes omitted].

[6] Exhibit 10: Supplementary affidavit of Stephanie Nicholas sworn 30 October 2020, SN-3: Position Description for the AO3 LSO role.

[7] T1-36, Ll 39-45.

[8] Exhibit 10, SN-3.

[9] Exhibit 10, SN-6: 2017/2018 Achievement Development Plan.

[10] Exhibit 10, SN-4 Code of Conduct training attendance records.

[11] Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Anthony Reilly, AR-10: Penalty Letter dated 12 September 2019.

[12] Respondent's outline of argument filed 11 November 2020, [2].

[13] Exhibit 11: email of 17 August 2018 containing final draft 'Performance discussion with Shelby Goddard'.

[14] Exhibit 11, [56(c)].

[15] Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Shelby Goddard sworn 2 September 220, [228].

[16] Exhibit 2, AR-4.

[17] Respondent's outline of argument filed 11 November 2020, [59].

[18] T4-7, Ll 25-28.

[19] Ibid, [10],[11].

[20] Ibid, [12].

[21] Ibid, [13].

[22] Ibid, [12].

[23] Ibid, [18].

[24] Ibid [15],[16].

[25] Exhibit 6: Affidavit of Marita Jane Kitchiner affirmed 29 September 2020, [21]-[29].

[26] Exhibit 1, [172].

[27] Exhibit 1, [175]-[182].

[28] Exhibit 9, [147].

[29] Exhibit 9, SN-1.

[30] T1-45, Ll 1-13.

[31] T1-45, Ll 15-22.

[32] T1-45, Ll 24-30.

[33] T1-59, Ll 35-46.

[34] T1-61, Ll 16-19.

[35] T1-45, Ll 32-43.

[36] T1-46, Ll 1-4.

[37] T1-49, Ll 10-18.

[38] T1-49, Ll 27-32.

[39] Exhibit 9, [17].

[40] Exhibit 9, [18].

[41] Exhibit 9, [19].

[42] Exhibit 9, SN-2.

[43] Exhibit 9, SN-3.

[44] Exhibit 9, SN-4.

[45] Exhibit 9, [23].

[46] Exhibit 9, [24].

[47] Exhibit 9, SN-5.

[48] T1-51-52.

[49] T4-3, L 45- T4-4, L 20.

[50] Exhibit 9, SN-7.

[51] Exhibit 1, [247]-[251].

[52] Exhibit 9, [133].

[53] Exhibit 9, SN-15.

[54] Exhibit 1, [151]-[154].

[55] T1-19, Ll 8-21.

[56] T1-20, Ll 10-13.

[57] T1-20, Ll 18-19.

[58] T1-20, Ll 30-36.

[59] T1-20, L 45 – T1-21, L 11.

[60] T1-21, Ll 16-19.

[61] T1-21, Ll 13-24.

[62] T1-21, Ll 26-34.

[63] T1-21, L 36 – T1-22, L l4.

[64] T1-22, Ll 23-42.

[65] T1-23, Ll 1-5.

[66] T1-23, Ll 7-12.

[67] T1-23, Ll 14-23.

[68] T1-23, Ll 35-40.

[69] T1-24, Ll 6-7.

[70] T1-24, Ll 9-19.

[71] Exhibit 9, SN-10.

[72] Exhibit 9, [173], SN-37.

[73] Respondent's outline of argument, full particulars of the allegations and the findings are set out in the First Show Cause Notice AR-4, Second Show Cause Notice AR-7 and Penalty Letter AR-10.

[74] Exhibit 7, [6], [10].

[75] Exhibit 7, [12], [14]

[76] Exhibit 1, [162]-[168].

[77] Exhibit 9, [145].

[78] Exhibit 1, [185]-[186]

[79] Exhibit 1, [189].

[80] Exhibit 1, [190]-[192].

[81] Exhibit 9 [150], T3-16, Ll 1-13.

[82] Exhibit 1, [193]-[197].

[83] Exhibit 1 [210]-[215], T4-3, Ll 35-43.

[84] Exhibit 1, Attachment E

[85] Exhibit 7, [17].

[86] Exhibit 7, [18]-[21].

[87] T1-62, Ll 8-32.

[88] Exhibit 7, [22]-[24].

[89] Exhibit 1, [266], T1-62, Ll 34-35.

[90] T1-63, Ll 1-8.

[91] T1-63, Ll 10-26.

[92] T1-63, Ll 28-31.

[93] T2-4, Ll 5-15.

[94] Exhibit 9, SN-25.

[95] T1-64, Ll 25-64.

[96] T1-65, Ll 37-38.

[97] T1-66, Ll 1-2

[98] T2-10, Ll 35-43.

[99] Exhibit 1, attachment F.

[100] T1-66, Ll 7-21

[101] T1-66, L 40 – T1-67, L l3.

[102] Exhibit 7, [33]-[40].

[103] T2-9, Ll 19-28.

[104] Exhibit 9, SN-25.

[105] T3-11, Ll 12-13.

[106] T3-21, Ll 1-21.

[107] Exhibit 11.

[108] T3-11, Ll 27-29..

[109] T3-12, Ll 38-44.

[110] Exhibit 11.

[111] Exhibit 2, AR-4.

[112] T1-65, Ll 3-15

[113] T1-63, Ll 10-26.

[114] Respondent's outline of argument filed 11 November 2020, full particulars of the allegations and findings are set out in exhibit 2, AR-4, AR-7, AR-10.

[115] T2-8, Ll 31-46.

[116] T1-54, Ll 1-12.

[117] T1-54, ll 26-40.

[118] Exhibit 1, [235].

[119] Exhibit 2, AR-3.

[120] Exhibit 9, SN-16.

[121] Exhibit 9, [35].

[122] Exhibit 9, [36].

[123] Exhibit 9. [37].

[124] Exhibit 6. [38]-[87].

[125] Exhibit 9. [38]-[72].

[126] Exhibit 9, SN-7.

[127] T1-52, Ll 28-34.

[128] T1-5, L 3 - T1-53, L7.

[129] T1-53, Ll 10-30.

[130] T3-8, Ll 21-35.

[131] Exhibit 1, [252]-[254], [258].

[132] T2-8, Ll 28-33.

[133] Exhibit 6, [102].

[134] Exhibit 6, [104].

[135] Exhibit 1, [271]-[280].

[136] Exhibit 6, [114], [115].

[137] Exhibit 6, [110]

[138] Exhibit 9, [164].

[139] Exhibit 6, [111].

[140] Exhibit 9, [165].

[141] T3-16, ll 36 - T3-17, L 7.

[142] T2-9, Ll 41-44.

[143] Exhibit 9, SN-25.

[144] Exhibit 9, SN-21

[145] Exhibit 9, SN-22

[146] Exhibit 9, SN-23.

[147] Exhibit 6, [119], [120].

[148] Exhibit 2, AR-7.

[149] [2020] FWC 416.

[150] Exhibit 9, [169].

[151] T3-18, Ll 10-17.

[152] Exhibit 9, [159], T3-9, Ll 28-30.

[153] T1-26, Ll 29-37.

[154] T4-6, Ll 5-9.

[155] T4-7, Ll 25-28.

[156] Exhibit 2, [16].

[157] Exhibit 2, AR-10.

[158] Exhibit 2, [24].

[159] Exhibit 2, [25].

[160] Exhibit 2, [26].

[161] Exhibit 2, AR-1.

[162] Exhibit 2, AR-2.

[163] Exhibit 2, AR-3.

[164] Exhibit 2, AR-4.

[165] Exhibit 2, AR-5.

[166] Exhibit 2, AR-6.

[167] Exhibit 2, AR-7.

[168] Exhibit 2, AR-8.

[169]Exhibit 2,  AR-9.

[170] Exhibit 2, AR-10.

[171] T1-36, L 32 – T1-39, L 14.

[172] T1-39, Ll 28-46.

[173] Exhibit 9, [107]-[108].

[174] Exhibit 9, [87].

[175] Exhibit 9, [89].

[176] Exhibit 9, [92].

[177] Exhibit 9, [104].

[178] Exhibit 9, [107].

[179] Exhibit 7, [27]-[31], [33]-[36]. 

[180] T1-29, Ll 38-40.

[181] T1-31, Ll 31-34.

[182] T1-32, Ll 1-2.

[183] T1-32, Ll 7-14.

[184] T1-32, Ll 29-33.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Goddard v Legal Aid Queensland

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Goddard v Legal Aid Queensland

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 154

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    11 May 2021

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 32
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 32
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 32
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 32
Dr Lucy Zhao v The University of Technology Sydney [2020] FWC 416
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] FWC 416
Cite 2 - [2020] FWC 416
Gold Coast Health District v Walker (2001) 168 QGIG 258
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 168 QGIG 258
Cite 2 - (2001) 168 QGIG 258
Laegal v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2018] QIRC 136
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QIRC 136
Cite 2 - [2018] QIRC 136

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

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.