Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education) - [2021] QIRC 193

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

Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2021] QIRC 193

Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2021] QIRC 193

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2021] QIRC 193

PARTIES: 

Woods, Matthew

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Education)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2020/383

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Conversion Decision

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2021

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Hartigan IC

On the papers

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – conversion decision – where appellant is acting in a temporary role – where appellant has been acting in a higher classification level –  where temporary role has an end date – where position no longer exists – consideration of "genuine operational requirements"

Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level – Directive 13/20, cl 4.2 cl 6, cl 7

Temporary employment – Directive 08/17, cl 9.6

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 562B

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 148, s 149C, s 197, s 201, s 295

Public Service and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2020 (Qld)

CASES:

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

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

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

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Mathew Woods appeals a decision of the State of Queensland (Department of Education) ("the Department") not to permanently appoint him to a position in which he has been acting at a higher classification level.
  1. [2]
    Mr Woods is permanently employed in the position of AO3, Corporate Service Officer, Human Resources, North Coast Region.
  1. [3]
    Since 12 March 2018, Mr Woods has been performing higher classification duties of AO7 Principal Project Officer within Teaching Queensland's Future Project ("TQF project"), that has been extended on five occasions. The Department submits that the purpose of Mr Woods performing this position is to perform work for the TQF project, which has a known end date of 30 June 2021.
  1. [4]
    On 26 October 2020, Mr Woods requested, pursuant to s 149C of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ("the PS Act"), to be permanently converted to the higher classification level position.
  1. [5]
    On 12 November 2020, the Department issued a decision refusing Mr Woods request to be permanently appointed to the role in which he had been acting ("the decision"). That is the decision which is the subject of the appeal.
  1. [6]
    The appeal is made pursuant to s 197 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), which provides than an appeal under Ch. 7, Pt. 1 of the PS Act is to be heard and determined under Ch. 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ("the IR Act") by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
  1. [7]
    Sections 562B(2) and (3) of the IR Act, which commended operation on 14 September 2020, replicates the now repealed ss 201(1) and (2) of the PS Act.[1] Section 562B(3) of the IR Act provides that the purpose of an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair or reasonable. Accordingly, the issue for my determination in this appeal is whether the decision is fair and reasonable.
  1. [8]
    As an IRC Member, I must decide the appeal by reviewing the decision appealed against. The word "review" has no settled meaning and, accordingly, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[2] An appeal under Ch. 7, Pt. 1 of the PS Act is not a re-hearing but, rather, involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision making process associated with it.[3]
  1. [9]
    For the reasons contained herein, I have found that the decision was fair and reasonable.

The decision

  1. [10]
    On 12 November 2020, the Department issued a decision in the following terms:

…

Section 148(2)(b) PS Act provides that employment of a person on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate if the reason for employment is to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date.

Specifically, the work you have been engaged to perform is contributing to the Teach Queensland's Future Project (TQF Project).

The TQF Project has a defined end date of 30 June 2021 with no further ongoing funding sources committed at this time. The TQF Project is devolving into a business as usual process, with the intent that the TQF Project's workforce planning tools already created will become part of workforce planning consultations at a regional level with school's individual leadership teams.

At the time of this decision, no options have been presented to commit further funding towards the extension of the TQF Project's life into business as usual operation. The life of the TQF Project as it currently stands, with no further funding forthcoming, will be concluded by 30 June 2021.

As the temporary nature of your higher classification level role is to assist in the delivery of the TQF Project which will conclude on 30 June 2021, along with the need for your higher classification role, a genuine operational requirement exits to refuse your request for appointment to the higher classification level role

…

Relevant provisions of the PS Act and Directive 13/20

  1. [11]
    In determining this appeal, I have had regard to relevant provisions of the PS Act and Directive 13/20: Appointing A Public Service Employee to a Higher Classification Level ("Directive 13/20"), including those provisions which I set out below.
  1. [12]
    Section 148 of the PS Act provides as follows:
  1. Employment of fixed term temporary employees
  1. (1)
    A chief executive may employ a person (a fixed term temporary employee) for a fixed term to perform work of a type ordinarily performed by a public service officer, other than a chief executive or senior executive officer, if employment of a person on tenure is not viable or appropriate, having regard to human resource planning carried out by the chief executive under section 98(1)(d).
  1. (2)
    Without limiting subsection (1), employment of a person on tenure may not be viable or appropriate if the employment if for any of the following purposes—
  1. (a)
    to fill a temporary vacancy arising because a person is absent for a known period;

Examples of absences for a known period—

 approved leave (including parental leave), a secondment

  1. (b)
    to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date;

Examples—

 employment for a set period as part of a training program or placement program

  1. (c)
    to fill a position for which funding is unlikely or unknown;

Examples—

employment relating to performing work for which funding is subject to change or is not expected to be renewed

  1. (d)
    to fill a short-term vacancy before a person is appointed on tenure;
  1. (e)
    to perform work necessary to meet an unexpected short-term increase in workload.

Example—

 an unexpected increase in workload for disaster management and recovery

  1. (3)
    Also, without limiting subsection (1), employment on tenure may be viable or appropriate if a person is required to be employed for a purpose mentioned in subsection (2) on a frequent or regular basis.

Example—

an ongoing requirement to backfill multiple absences because of approved leave (including parental leave) or secondments

  1. (4)
    The employment may be full-time or part-time.
  1. (5)
    A person employed under this section does not, only because of the employment, become a public service officer.
  1. (6)
    The commission chief executive may make a directive about employing fixed term temporary employees under this section.
  1. [13]
    Section 149C of the PS Act relevantly provides:

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

  1. (1)
    This section applies in relation to a public service employee if the employee—
  1. (a)
    is seconded to, under section 120(1)(a), or is acting at, a higher classification level in the department in which the employee holds an appointment or is employed; and
  1. (b)
    has been seconded to or acting at the higher classification level for a continuous period of at least 1 year; and
  1. (c)
    is eligible for appointment to the position at the higher classification level having regard to the merit principle.
  1. (2)
    However, this section does not apply to the following public services employees—
  1. (a)
    a casual employee;
  1. (b)
    a non-industrial instrument employee;
  1. (c)
    an employee who is seconded to or acting in a position that is ordinarily held by a non-industrial instrument employee.
  1. (3)
    The employee may ask the department's chief executive to appoint the employee to the position at the higher classification level as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer, after—
  1. (a)
    the end of 1 year of being seconded to or acting at the higher classification level; and
  1. (b)
    each 1-year period after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a).
  1. (4)
    The department's chief executive must decide the request within the required period.

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

  1. (a)
    the genuine operational requirements of the department; and
  1. (b)
    the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.
  1. (5)
    If the department's chief executive decides to refuse the request, the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating—
  1. (a)
    reasons for the decision; and
  1. (b)
    the total continuous period for which the person has been acting at the higher classification level in the department; and
  1. (c)
    how many times the person's engagement at the higher classification level has been extended; and
  1. (d)
    each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.
  1. (6)
    If the department's chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have refused the request.
  1. (7)
    The commission chief executive must make a directive about appointing an employee to a position at a higher classification level under this section.
  1. (8)
    In this section—

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

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

  1. (a)
    the period stated in an industrial instrument within which the decision must be made; or
  1. (b)
    if paragraph (a) does not apply—28 days after the request is made.
  1. [14]
    The phrase "genuine operational requirement of the department" is not defined in the PS Act or Directive 13/20. The phrase in the context of s 149C of the PS Act, was considered in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women),[4] Merrell DP relevantly stated:[5]

The phrase 'genuine operational requirements of the department' is not defined in the PS Act or in the Directive. As a consequence, that phrase must take its meaning from the words used in it and the context in which it appears in the PS Act; and consideration of the context includes surrounding provisions, what may be drawn from other aspects of the instrument, the instrument as a whole and it extends to what the instrument seeks to remedy. The same considerations apply to the construction of the same phrase in cl 6.2(a) of the Directive.

The adjective 'genuine' relevantly means '… being truly such; real; authentic.' The phrase 'operational requirements of the department' is obviously a broad term that permits a consideration of many matters depending upon the particular circumstances of the department at a particular time. In considering the context of s 149C(4A)(a) of the PS Act, the chief executive of a department, under the PS Act, is responsible for, amongst other things:

  • managing the department in a way that promotes the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources;
  • planning human resources, including ensuring the employment in the department of persons on a fixed term temporary or casual basis occurs only if there is a reason for the basis of employment under the PS Act.

(Citations omitted)

  1. [15]
    Directive 13/20 came into effect on 25 September 2020. Directive 13/20 recognises that the PS Act establishes employment on tenure as the default basis of employment in the public service and sets out the circumstances where employment on tenure is not viable or appropriate.
  1. [16]
    Clause 4.2 of Directive 13/20 sets out examples of certain circumstances that would support the temporary engagement of an employee at a higher classification level, as follows:

4.2.  Secondment to or assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level should only be used when permanent appointment to the role is not viable or appropriate. Circumstances that would support the temporary engagement of an employee at a higher classification level include:

  1. (a)
    when an existing employee takes a period of leave such as parental, long service, recreation or long-term sick leave and needs to be replaced until the date of their expected return
  1. (b)
    when an existing employee is absent to perform another role within their agency, or is on secondment, and the agency does not use permanent relief pools for those types of roles
  1. (c)
    to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date
  1. (d)
    to perform work necessary to meet an unexpected short-term increase in workload
  1. [17]
    Clause 6 of Directive 13/20 sets out the decision-making process when determining whether to permanently appoint an employee to a higher classification level, as follows:
  1.  Decision making

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

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

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

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

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

  1. [18]
    Clause 7 of Directive 13/20 provides that a decision maker who refuses a request must provide a statement of reasons, as follows:
  1.  Statement of reasons

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

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

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

  1. [19]
    Section 295 of the PS Act provides for the transitional provisions for the application of s 149C of the PS Act for employees acting at higher classification levels immediately before the commencement of s 149C of the PS Act. In summary, s 295(3) of the PS Act provides that for s 149C, the period for which the person has been continuously acting at the higher classification level before the commencement will be taken into account for working out how long the person has been acting at that level for a continuous period for s 149C(1)(b).

Genuine operational requirements of the Department

  1. [20]
    As noted above, s 149C(4A)(a) of the PS Act and clause 6.2(a) of the Directive provides that the decision maker must have regard to the "genuine operational requirements of the Department".
  1. [21]
    It has been held,[6] that when construed in context, the phrase "genuine operational requirements of the Department" would, at least, include consideration of the following:

…

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

  1. [22]
    In his submissions, Mr Woods criticised the following five components of the decision:
  1. a)
    Section 148(2)(b) of the PS Act provides that employment of a person on a permanent basis may not be viable or appropriate if the reasons for employment is to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date. Specifically, the work you have been engaged to perform is contributing to the Teach Queensland's Future Project (TQF Project). ("reason one");
  1. b)
    The TQF Project has a defined end date of 30 June 2021 with no further ongoing funding sources committed at this time. ("reason two");
  1. c)
    The TQF project is devolving into a business as usual process, with the intent that the TQF Project's workforce planning tools already created will become part of workforce planning consultations at a regional level with school's individual leadership teams. ("reason three");
  1. d)
    At the time of this decision, no options have been presented to commit further funding towards the extension of the TQF Project's life into business as usual operation. The life of the TQF Project as it currently stands, with no further funding forthcoming, will be concluded by 30 June 2021. ("reason four"); and
  1. e)
    As the temporary nature of your higher classification level role is to assist in the delivery of the TQF Project which will conclude on 30 June 2021, along with the need for your higher classification role, a genuine operational requirement exists to refuse your request for appointment to the higher classification level role. ("reason five")

Reason one

  1. [23]
    Mr Woods submits that reason one is not a listed reason anywhere in Directive 13/20 of the PS Act as a basis to refuse appointment to the higher classification level.
  1. [24]
    Mr Woods further submits that cl 4.2 of Directive 13/20 stipulates some circumstances which would support the temporary engagement of an employee at a higher classification level. He states that these reasons appear to echo three of the five reasons provided in s 148(2) of the PS Act supporting fixed term temporary employment, suggesting that there are fewer circumstances where secondment is viable compared to employment on tenure or when fixed term employment is viable. Mr Woods submits that he has been extended in the role on five occasions which demonstrates employment in the same higher classification level role on a frequent and regular basis. He submits that in accordance with s 148(3) of the PS Act, this would warrant consideration of his employment on tenure.
  1. [25]
    The Department has attached a copy of the Stage Plan to its submissions. It relevantly states[7] that the:

Operationalise Phase start date is from 1 July 2020 and planned end date is 30 June 2021.

  1. [26]
    The Department submits that the TQF project was created to execute a five year strategy to ensure the sustainable supply of capable and confident teachers in Queensland's state schools. It submits that the TQF project has been funded and resourced according to a scheduled completion of 30 June 2021.
  1. [27]
    I consider that Mr Woods' situation, being that he has been engaged to perform work as a Principal Project Officer on a project with a fixed end date, is a situation that is considered by both s 148(2)(b) of the PS Act and the example set out in cl 4.2 of the Directive 13/20.
  1. [28]
    Relevantly, the appointment of an employee to a higher classification level is supported by cl 4.2 of Directive 13/20 in several circumstances, including when that employee has been engaged to perform work for a particular project that has a known end date. That is the relevant circumstance of this matter.
  1. [29]
    I consider that the decision was fair and reasonable in so far as reason one is concerned.

Reason two

  1. [30]
    Mr Woods submits that the TQF project is actually a five year funded major program and initiative with multiple projects funded within it. He submits that it has approved funding in place until 30 June 2022, not June 2021 as stated by the Department in its decision. He submits that this is confirmed on page 11 of the Department's People and Executive Services Operational and Recover Plan 2020-2021. This document was not attached to Mr Woods' submission.
  1. [31]
    The submissions made by Mr Woods is not reflected in the copy of the Stage Plan that has been provided to me during the course of this appeal. As noted above, the Stage Plan identifies a planned end date of 30 June 2021.
  1. [32]
    The Department maintains its position that the TQF project has been funded and resourced according to a scheduled completion of 30 June 2021. However, it does note that there are current considerations for a six month extension of the TQF project, which is subject to executive approval and will not necessarily result in an extension of Mr Woods' higher classification level position.
  1. [33]
    The Department submits that the TQF project has always been scheduled for completion in the fourth year of the five year TQF strategy. It submits that the remaining year of the TQF strategy will be achieved by the current regional HR teams utilising the workforce planning tools in their business as usual activities. In this regard, in the final stages of the TQF project scheduled for 2021, the role of the team members is to assist the regional HR business partners to integrate and implement the workforce planning tools into the business as usual activities. It further submits that the project scope does not include the transition of the temporary project positions, and/or the employees engaged in those positions to the regional HR teams.
  1. [34]
    Accordingly, it is clear from the above that even if the TQF project is extended for a further six months, although there is no material before me to support that conclusion, that it would not render the decision as not fair or reasonable because:
  1. a)
    there is no evidence that Mr Woods would be required to perform the work for that additional six month extension; and
  1. b)
    in any event, the nature of the TQF project is such that at the conclusion of the project (whether it be on 30 June 2021 or 31 December 2021), there will be no ongoing role for the project officers as the purpose of the project is to integrate and implement the workforce planning tools into the business as usual activities and not sit as a separate project.
  1. [35]
    For this reason, I consider reason two to be fair and reasonable.

Reason three

  1. [36]
    Mr Woods submits that his current project role is to conduct Strategic Workforce Planning in schools and regions across the state and develop/enhance Strategic Workforce Planning capabilities within the Department.
  1. [37]
    He submits that there is currently no permanently established unit or positions that undertake Strategic Workforce Planning in the long term outside of the Workforce Planning Unit and associate project. Mr Woods submits that there are strong indicators that support the ongoing nature of the current Workforce Planning position, which do not otherwise or exist within the Department. He states that this supports the state wide workforce planning effort and it is not a function that would likely be absorbed by regional HR teams or individual school leadership teams, given the de-centralised model of delivery in regions and schools, and the unique capabilities and expertise required to deliver. Mr Woods further submits that regional HR workload concerns are a major part of the Coaldrake review, putting into question the viability of workforce planning functions, transitioning to business as usual activity as suggested in reason three.
  1. [38]
    Mr Woods further submits that the Department fails to acknowledge genuine operational requirements supporting the need for ongoing employment of Workforce Planning specialists and employees in the Workforce Planning Capability Project. Mr Woods submits that it is only one aspect of his role that is proposed to transition to business as usual by December 2021, pending the outcome of the HR service, delivery and operating model reviews.
  1. [39]
    Whilst I accept the thrust of Mr Woods submissions in this regard, they are of a general nature and do not specifically relate to the particular position which he is currently acting in. Relevantly, Directive 13/20 and the PS Act provides for a process wherein an employee who has been seconded to or assuming the responsibilities of a higher classification level can request to be appointed to the position at the higher classification level. Here, the relevant position that Mr Woods is employed in is as the Principal Project Officer of the TQF project. The only relevant consideration with respect to the genuine operational requirements is those requirements as they relate to the conversion of Mr Woods' employment to the Principal Project Officer of the TQF project. The general requirements of Strategic Workforce Planning are not a relevant consideration.
  1. [40]
    Accordingly, I do not consider reason three to not be fair or reasonable.

Reason four

  1. [41]
    Mr Woods submits that his submissions with respect to reason two also apply to reason four. He states that the option to extend the project beyond 30 June 2021, has been tabled at the time of the decision notice and that the TQF program funding is approved beyond the stated date up to 30 June 2022. Mr Woods submits that the statements made in reason four are therefore incorrect and cannot be used to justify refusal to appoint to the higher classification level.
  1. [42]
    I understand Mr Woods' submissions to be that the reason the decision is incorrect and accordingly not fair or reasonable is on the basis that it refers to an end date of 30 June 2021 and he states that the TQF project has been extended to 30 June 2022.
  1. [43]
    Earlier in his submissions, Mr Woods indicated that requests had been made by the TQF project control board on 20 October 2020, to seek a variation request to extend the project to December 2021. Other than the Stage Plan which is attached to the Department's submissions, there is no objective material before me in relation to where the current end date of the project stands.
  1. [44]
    I am satisfied on the material before me that the current end date of the TQF project is 30 June 2021. However, as noted above, even if an extension is sought and approved to extend the project end date to either 31 December 2021 or 30 June 2022, that does not change the nature of this specific project, being that it has been established for a discrete purpose and that it is intended to end once it has fulfilled its purpose.
  1. [45]
    Accordingly, I consider that the nature of this project is a project with a defined purpose and definitive end date. That is, it is not a project which will be ongoing in nature. Once the project ends there will be no need for Mr Woods' higher duties position of Principal Project Officer for the TQF project to continue. 
  1. [46]
    For these reasons, I consider reason four to be fair and reasonable.

Reason five

  1. [47]
    Mr Woods submits that the Department incorrectly suggests that because the current funding of the project has a nominal end date, that there is no genuine operational requirement for the role.
  1. [48]
    Mr Woods submits that in addition to the variation request to extend the project detailed in his submissions to reason two and four, he has been provided verbal advise by his manager that there is a potential opportunity to extend the Workforce Planning Capability Project beyond June 2021 up to December 2021, or potentially June 2022, in line with the TQF program funding conclusion. He submits that this would extend his full service duration in the role in excess of four years in total.
  1. [49]
    Mr Woods further submits that in addition to the disputed time frames of the project and ongoing requirements of the role, that there are permanent employment precedents of project officers within the unit and Workforce Planning Capability Project employed using temporary project funding.  He submits that there has been conversion to permanent precedents set within the Workforce Planning Capability Project wherein several employees have been converted from temporary to permanent through the superseded 08/17 Temporary Employment Directive.
  1. [50]
    Mr Woods submits that these precedents indicate that the temporary project funding for the current AO7 Principal Project Officer position were not considered to prevent conversion to permanent tenure and that a like/similar role, with the same capabilities is required of the Department of Education, thereby supporting a genuine operational need. Mr Woods further submits that the skills associated with his position are required  beyond the end date of the project and that identical roles to his have been assessed under cl 9.6(a) of the Temporary Employment Directive 08/17, that "there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, a role which is substantially the same, and the role is likely to be ongoing."
  1. [51]
    I do not accept Mr Woods' submissions as to the relevance of the conversion of other employees under separate and distinct processes found in the Temporary Employment Directive 08/17.
  1. [52]
    Relevantly, the issue for the determination of the decision maker in this matter was the request by Mr Woods to be permanently appointed to the position at the higher classification level.
  1. [53]
    Accordingly, it is the current role that Mr Woods is performing in which is the subject of the request. The Department has not erred by not considering other roles within other projects and/or that are of a similar nature because that is not what is required by Directive 13/20.
  1. [54]
    In any event, the Department confirms that no other decisions have been made, or deemed, pursuant to s 149C of the PS Act, within the Workplace Planning Unit.
  1. [55]
    For these reasons, I do not consider that reason five was not a fair or reasonable conclusion.

Conclusion

  1. [56]
    Mr Woods requested to be permanently appointed to the Principal Project Officer position which he has been performing within the TQF project. That is the relevant position which is required to be considered pursuant to Directive 13/20. The Principal Project Officer position relates to a project which has a defined purpose which includes, inter alia, the ultimate integration and implementation of the Workforce Planning tools into the business as usual activities. Accordingly, the project will not be an ongoing project and is finite in nature.
  1. [57]
    Currently, on the information before me, the TQF project has an end date of 30 June 2021. Even if the project is extended for a further six or 12 months, depending upon time frames in the final phase, there will be no ongoing requirement beyond the term of the project for Mr Woods to perform the role of Principal Project Officer for the TQF project.
  1. [58]
    Accordingly, when considering the operational requirements of the Department, including managing the Department in a way that promotes the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources, I consider that the reasons provided by the decision maker support a conclusion that the refusal to appoint Mr Woods to the higher classification level was for a genuine operational requirement of the Department.
  1. [59]
     For the forgoing reasons, I consider the decision to be fair and reasonable.

Order

  1. [60]
    I make the following order:
  1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] See the Public Service and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2020 (Qld).

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

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

[4] [2020] QIRC 203.

[5] Ibid, [37] – [38].

[6] Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 per DP Merrell, [40].

[7] Page 4 of 12.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Woods v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 193

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Hartigan IC

  • Date:

    02 Jun 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
Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 183 CLR 245
Cite 2 - (1995) 183 CLR 245
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] HCA 10
Cite 2 - [1995] HCA 10
Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 319
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 319
Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 4 - [2020] QIRC 203

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Lynch v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 2342 citations
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.