Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. McCarthy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission - [2021] QIRC 266

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

McCarthy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2021] QIRC 266

McCarthy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission[2021] QIRC 266

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

McCarthy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2021] QIRC 266

PARTIES:

McCarthy, Jamie Louise

(Appellant)

v

Queensland Building and Construction Commission

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2021/62

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Temporary Employment

DELIVERED ON:

2 August 2021

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

  ORDERS:

That pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld):

  1. The appeal is allowed;
  1. The decision that Miss McCarthy not have her temporary employment converted to permanent employment is set aside and another decision is substituted; and
  1. Miss McCarthy's temporary employment status be converted to permanent employment.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – APPEAL – temporary employment – where the appellant was reviewed under s 149B of the Public Service Act 2008 – whether the deemed decision was fair and reasonable – whether vacant and funded position required for conversion – whether appellant required 'on a frequent or regular basis' – consideration of continuing need – consideration of genuine operational requirements

LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A, sch 1

Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment cl 1, cl 4, cl 8, cl 11

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, s 562C, s 564

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 27, s 148, s 149, s 149A, s 149B, s 194, s 196, s 294

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7, s 14

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

CASES:

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

Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Miss Jamie McCarthy (the Appellant) has filed an appeal against a deemed decision by the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC; the Respondent).
  1. [2]
    Miss McCarthy is currently employed as a temporary AO4 Assessment Officer in the Dispute Resolution Branch of the QBCC.
  1. [3]
    Miss McCarthy has been employed by the QBCC as a temporary employee since 16 December 2014 - her employment history is summarised below:
  • AO2 Records Officer in the Records Unit of the QBCC from 16 December 2014 until around 2 August 2015;
  • AO3 Customer Support Officer in the Resolution Services Unit from 3 August 2015 until around 10 January 2016; and
  • AO4 Assessment Officer in various positions from 11 January 2016, as stipulated below:

– Position number 1687 (145 days);

– Position number 1412 (760 days);

– Position number 1357 (394 days); and

– Position number 1984 (from 1 January 2021).

  1. [4]
    The period in which Miss McCarthy undertook the AO4 duties was also interspersed with short periods of higher duties at the AO5 and AO6 levels.
  1. [5]
    Miss McCarthy's current temporary engagement is expected to conclude on 8 November 2021.

The Decision

  1. [6]
    Section 149B(4) of the PS Act provides:
  1. (4)
    The department’s chief executive must make the decision within the required period after—
  1. (a)
    the end of 2 years after the employee has been continuously employed as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee in the department; and
  1. (b)
    each 1-year period after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a) during which the employee is continuously employed as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee in the department.
  1. [7]
    The 'required period' is defined at s 149B(9) as being:
  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 end of the period mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b).
  1. [8]
    Miss McCarthy became eligible for review on 16 December 2020, being the six-year anniversary of her commencement with QBCC as a fixed term temporary employee.[1] Therefore, the required period within which the QBCC ought to have made a decision ended 28 days later on 13 January 2021. 
  1. [9]
    Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (IR Act) requires that an appeal be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given.
  1. [10]
    The deemed decision was given on 13 January 2021 and the Appeal Notice was filed 21 days later on 3 February 2021. On that basis, I am satisfied Miss McCarthy has lodged her Appeal Notice on time.
  1. [11]
    The decision subject of this appeal is the Respondent's deemed decision not to convert Miss McCarthy's employment status from temporary to permanent. 
  1. [12]
    Clause 11.1 of the Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment (Directive 09/20) provides that "A fixed term temporary employee eligible for review under section 149B has a right of appeal provided for in section 194(1)(e) of the PS Act in relation to a decision not to convert."
  1. [13]
    Section 194(1)(e)(i) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against "a decision (each a conversion decision) – under section 149B not to convert the basis of employment of an employee". This is the 'type of decision' Miss McCarthy indicated was being appealed against in the Appeal Notice. Section 196(e) of the PS Act prescribes that "the employee the subject of the decision" may appeal "for a conversion decision". 
  1. [14]
    For the reasons outlined above, I am satisfied the deemed decision was made under s 149B of the PS Act and is able to be appealed.

Appeal principles

  1. [15]
    Section 562B(2)-(3) of the IR Act provides that the appeal is decided by reviewing the decision appealed against to determine whether it "was fair and reasonable".
  1. [16]
    The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing,[2] but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the Respondent and the associated decision-making process.[3] 
  1. [17]
    Findings made by the Respondent, which are reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal. Even so, in reviewing the decision appealed against, the QIRC member may allow other evidence to be taken into account.[4]
  1. [18]
    The issue for my determination is whether the decision not to convert Miss McCarthy's employment status from temporary to permanent was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.[5]

What decisions can the QIRC Member make?

  1. [19]
    Section 562C of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:
  • Confirm the decision appealed against; or
  • Set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate; or
  • Set the decision aside and substitute another decision.

Appellant's submissions

  1. [20]
    I preface the following summary noting that Miss McCarthy's submissions helpfully included extracts of the relevant sections of the PS Act and IR Act as well as case law. The relevant provisions and principles will be extracted later in this decision.
  1. [21]
    In the Appeal Notice filed 3 February 2021, Miss McCarthy submits that:
  • In making a deemed decision, the chief executive has not taken into account the criteria under s 149A(2) of the PS Act and cl 8.1 of Directive 09/20.
  • Miss McCarthy has performed in her current role in excess of four years without any adverse findings, thereby demonstrating merit pursuant to s 27 of the PS Act.
  1. [22]
    Further, in Miss McCarthy's submissions filed 10 February 2021, she submits that:
  • QBCC has not advanced any reason or basis not to convert Miss McCarthy's employment, nor have they identified any genuine operational requirement as contemplated in the second limb of s 149A(3) of the PS Act.
  • Miss McCarthy meets the mandatory criteria under s 149B(5) of the PS Act as outlined in s 149A(2). Further, there are no genuine operational reasons of the Respondent not to convert her and the chief executive must offer Miss McCarthy employment under s 149A(3).
  • As Miss McCarthy is eligible for conversion, the deemed decision is not fair and reasonable.

Respondent's Submissions

  1. [23]
    In its written submission dated 8 March 2021, the Respondent submitted:
  • Mr Robert Hubbard, Human Resource Business Partner reviewed Miss McCarthy's circumstances and conveyed in correspondence dated 22 January 2021 that:

– There is an ongoing business need for the role to be performed;

– Miss McCarthy "was meritorious";

– There were no substantively vacant funded positions that were substantially similar that could be based on/performed from the Gold Coast for Miss McCarthy to be appointed to;

– It would not be organisationally viable to create an additional unfunded position to which Miss McCarthy could be appointed.

  • Miss McCarthy has been temporarily engaged to backfill other employees, primarily while the substantive position holders were on secondment or undertaking higher duties elsewhere.
  • The positions undertaken by Miss McCarthy were not substantively vacant, preventing Miss McCarthy's permanent appointment.
  • Miss McCarthy has been offered and accepted a temporary contract extension to backfill for a higher duty secondment, for the period from 27 February 2021 until 8 November 2021.[6]
  • The decision was made on the basis of organisational viability because there were no funded, substantively vacant positions to allow permanent conversion under s 149 of the PS Act.
  • Creating additional unfunded positions for the purpose of conversion "would potentially create the circumstances for excess officers requiring placement and or other support under the Employment Security Policy."
  • Section 148(2)(a) states that "employment of a person on tenure may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is… to fill a temporary vacancy arising because a person is absent for a known period". The prescribed example is for "approved leave (including parental leave), a secondment".
  • Should the deemed decision be set aside, and another review undertaken, it will not alter the original outcome because the circumstances have not changed to support the organisational viability of the conversion decision.

Appellant's submissions in reply

  1. [24]
    In her reply submissions filed 15 March 2021, Miss McCarthy submitted that: 
  • Decision makers are not obliged to consider whether substantive funded vacancies exist as this is not a requirement for conversion. The Public Service Commission's Fixed term temporary and casual employment FAQs state:

It is important to note that conversion of a fixed term temporary or casual employee to permanent employment is not dependent on the existence of a substantive vacancy.

  • The Respondent erred in considering only that there were no substantive funded vacancies, rather than if there was a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in a role that is substantially the same as her current role, as required by s 149A(2)(a) of the PS Act.
  • Section 148(3) provides that "employment on tenure may be viable if a person is required to be employed for a purpose mention in subsection (2) on a frequent or regular basis". Miss McCarthy has been employed on a temporary basis for a continuous 7-year period which constitutes 'a frequent or regular basis'.

Relevant provisions of the PS Act and Directive 09/20

  1. [25]
    Section 148 of the PS Act states:

148  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 is 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. (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. [26]
    Section 149B of the PS Act relevantly provides:

149B  Review of status after 2 years continuous employment

  1. (1)
    This section applies in relation to a person who is a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee if the person has been continuously employed in the same department for 2 years or more.

…

  1. (5)
    In making the decision-
  1. (a)
    section 149A(2) and (3) applies to the department's chief executive; and
  1. (b)
    the department's chief executive must have regard to the reasons      for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 149A in relation to the person during the person's period of continuous employment.
  1. [27]
    Section 149A(2) of the PS Act provides:
  1. (2)
    The department's chief executive may offer to convert the person's employment under section 149(3)(b) only if-
  1. (a)
    the department's chief executive considers-
  1. (i)
    there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the person's role, or a role that is substantially the same as the person's role; and
  1. (ii)
    the person is eligible for appointment having regard to the merit principle; and
  1. (b)
    any requirements of an industrial instrument are complied with in relation to the decision.
  1. [28]
    Section 149A(3) of the PS Act provides:
  1. (3)
    If the matters in subsection (2) are satisfied, the department's chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment basis to employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer, unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the department.
  1. [29]
    Directive 09/20 relevantly provides:

8.  Decision on review of status

8.1  When deciding whether to offer permanent employment under section 149A or 149B, a chief executive must consider the criteria in section 149A(2):

•  whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same

•  the merit of the fixed term temporary employee for the role having regard to the merit principle in section 27 of the PS Act

•  whether any requirements of an industrial instrument need to be complied with in relation to making the decision, and

•  the reasons for each decision previously made, or deemed to have been made, under sections 149A or 149B in relation to the employee during their period of continuous employment.

8.2  Sections 149A(3) and 149B(5) provide that where the criteria above are met, the chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment to permanent employment as a General employee on tenure or a public service officer unless it is not viable or appropriate having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the agency.

  1. [30]
    Directive 09/20 is a statutory instrument within the meaning of s 7 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld).[7]
  1. [31]
    Section 14 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) provides that certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) apply to statutory instruments.  One of those is s 14A which provides that in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation. Schedule 1 to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that 'purpose', for an act, includes policy objective.
  1. [32]
    The purpose of Directive 09/20 is:

1. Purpose

1.1 The Public Service Act 2008 (PS Act) establishes employment on tenure as the default basis of employment in the Queensland public service, excluding non-industrial instrument employees, and sets out the circumstances where employment on tenure is not viable or appropriate.  The PS Act also sets out the matters a chief executive must consider when deciding whether to offer to convert the employment of a fixed term temporary employee to employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer.

 The legislation indicates where employment on tenure may not be appropriate.

 …

  1. [33]
    Further, Directive 09/20 relevantly provides:

4. Principles

4.1  Section 25(2) of the PS Act provides that employment on tenure is the default basis of employment in the public service, excluding non-industrial instrument employees.  This section gives full effect to the Government's Employment Security Policy.

…

Consideration

  1. [34]
    I am required to decide this appeal by assessing whether or not the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. This involves a review of the decision-making process utilised and the decision arrived at. 
  1. [35]
    Section 149A(2) of the PS Act and cl 8.1 of Directive 09/20 contain the mandatory decision criteria for temporary employment conversions to permanent.  The decision maker must consider:
  • whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same;
  • the merit of the fixed term temporary employee for the role having regard to the merit principle in s 27 of the PS Act;
  • whether any requirements of an industrial instrument need to be complied with in relation to making the decision; and
  • the reasons for each decision previously made, or deemed to have been made, under ss 149A or 149B of the PS Act in relation to the employee during their period of continuous employment.
  1. [36]
    Clause 8.2 of Directive 09/20 provides that (emphasis added):[8]

…where the criteria above are met, the chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment to permanent employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer unless it is not viable or appropriate having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the agency.

  1. [37]
    My decision firstly turns on the question of whether there is a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same. 
  1. [38]
    The remaining three criterion listed above are not in dispute.

Whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same

  1. [39]
    There are two potential pathways to conversion. The first pathway is Miss McCarthy's current role. The second pathway is an alternative role which is substantially the same.

Pathway 1: Is there a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in the current role?

  1. [40]
    Mr Hubbard indicated in his correspondence dated 22 January 2021 that there is an ongoing business need for Miss McCarthy's role to be performed. That proposition indicates that when the incumbent owner is absent, there is a need for an alternative employee (in this case, Miss McCarthy) to perform that role. On that basis, as the incumbent owner's absence is continuing, there is a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to perform her current role at least until 8 November 2021.
  1. [41]
    The Respondent submits that the purpose of Miss McCarthy's engagements have been to backfill substantive position owners. That particular circumstance may have constituted reasons for the Respondent to initially employ Miss McCarthy on a temporary basis. However, after nearly seven years of meritoriously undertaking various roles, I do not consider it reasonable for the Respondent to rely on that indefinitely. Seven years is a substantial amount of time which is supported by the fact that many employees are entitled to pro-rata long service leave following that length of service.
  1. [42]
    The pattern of Miss McCarthy's undertaking of the temporary contracts in substantively the same role suggests there is a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in her current role, and that said role and her involvement in it are likely to be ongoing. It is on that basis, and in the absence of genuine operational reasons to the contrary as set out below, that I will convert Miss McCarthy to permanency.
  1. [43]
    For the sake of completeness, I will also consider the second pathway to permanent conversion.

Pathway 2: Is there a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in a role which is substantially the same?

  1. [44]
    The Respondent submitted there were no substantively vacant, funded positions that were substantially similar to Miss McCarthy's current role and based on the Gold Coast.
  1. [45]
    It is relevant that s 149A(2)(a)(i) of the PS Act requires consideration of the person's role, or a role that is substantially the same. The Respondent has stopped short of demonstrating its consideration of the entirety of the mandatory criteria as it appears its consideration was limited to identifying vacant and funded roles based on the Gold Coast. Although regrettable, inattention to evidencing consideration of that second pathway to conversion is not altogether unusual in these types of appeals.
  1. [46]
    The fact of this case is that the Respondent did not define a role which is substantially the same in its correspondence to Miss McCarthy. Nor has the Respondent's subsequent submissions addressed this requirement.  Notwithstanding that, the duty to do so must properly be discharged. 
  1. [47]
    In addition to neglecting the key issue of defining a role which is substantially the same, the Respondent did not demonstrate that they had analysed the capability requirements of the role performed by Miss McCarthy.  The combination of those failures has resulted in foundationally flawed efforts to identify another role which may be substantially the same.
  1. [48]
    In considering whether there is a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in a role which is substantially the same, I am also conscious of the recent, further extension to her fixed term temporary contract on the basis of a successive need to backfill approved leave to the absent incumbent employee/s. 
  1. [49]
    I have found that there is a continuing need for Miss McCarthy to be employed in her current role.  However, in the alternative and for the reasons above, I also find that the refusal to convert Miss McCarthy was unreasonable because fairness and reasonableness requires the appropriate weight be given to the consideration of these relevant factors.

Genuine operational reasons

  1. [50]
    Section 149A(3) of the PS Act provides (emphasis added):

…the department's chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment basis to employment as a general employee on tenure of a public service officer, unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the department.

  1. [51]
    'Operational requirements' are not defined in the PS Act, so the term must be given its ordinary meaning. 
  1. [52]
    The Respondent submitted that the genuine operational reason to deny conversion is effectively that there are no substantively vacant, funded positions available and it would not be organisationally viable to create an additional unfunded position to which Miss McCarthy could be appointed. The Respondent submitted that creating additional unfunded positions for the purpose of conversion "would potentially create the circumstances for excess officers requiring placement and or other support under the Employment Security Policy."
  1. [53]
    Miss McCarthy correctly submitted that neither the PS Act nor Directive 09/20 prescribe that a temporary employee's conversion relies first on the existence of a permanent vacancy. Further, it is an inherent requirement of converting any temporary employee to permanency that there will be budgetary relocations and the like. There is no indication that the difficulties faced by the Respondent in this instance would be any different than those posed to most agencies converting employees.
  1. [54]
    The Respondent's submission regarding the Employment Security Policy was somewhat vague. However, in that regard I note cl 4 of Directive 09/20 relevantly stipulates that s 25(2) of the PS provides that employment on tenure is the default basis and that section gives full effect to the Government's Employment Security Policy.
  1. [55]
    Considering the substantial length of Miss McCarthy's continuous temporary engagements, there is clearly a constant need for an additional employee. In a situation where the need for backfilling is constant and substantial, I do not accept that permanent conversion of Miss McCarthy will have a negative impact on organisational viability. Rather, it appears from the evidence before me that permanent conversion may, to some extent, negate the need for backfilling in the future. 
  1. [56]
    After nearly seven years of being engaged on a temporary basis, I am persuaded Miss McCarthy has been employed for the purpose of backfilling "on a frequent and regular basis". Section 148(3) of the PS Act contemplates that "an ongoing requirement to backfill multiple absences because of approved leave (including parental leave) or secondments" supports employment on tenure as a viable and appropriate option. The considerable length of time for which Miss McCarthy has been backfilling other employees suggests there is a need for another permanent employee and it would be unreasonable for the Respondent to refute Miss McCarthy's request on the basis of funding or a lack of vacancies when she has continuously been paid and utilised in the roles extensively.
  1. [57]
    The Respondent pointed to s 148(2)(a) of the PS Act which indicates employment on tenure may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is to fill a temporary vacancy arising because a person is absent. The issue is not whether it was appropriate to initially employ Miss McCarthy on a temporary basis. The question is whether that should continue. It is possible that the work undertaken by Miss McCarthy could be done on temporary basis. That also is not in issue. A finding that the work could be done on a temporary basis is not tantamount to evidencing a genuine operational reason not to convert to permanent. The Respondent must demonstrate that genuine operational reasons prevent the conversion to permanent. For the reasons above, they have not done so. As such, that is not a reasonable genuine operational reason not to convert Miss McCarthy to permanent.
  1. [58]
    In the alternative, I have explained my concern with the Respondent's lack of reference to the exploration of any role which is substantially the same and the absence of any evidence of its analysis and assessment of capability requirements inherent in either the role currently performed by Miss McCarthy or others that may be substantially the same. This is further impeded by the Respondent's misunderstanding that they must identify a role that is funded and vacant.
  1. [59]
    On the material before me, I have found that there is a continuing role, being the role Miss McCarthy is currently backfilling, and that there is a continuing need for her to be employed in that role.
  1. [60]
    In arriving at this conclusion, I am conscious that the PS Act and Directive 09/20 are purposed with encouraging and maximising security of public sector employment.  That purpose is furthered by the undertaking of careful reviews of factual circumstances in the context of the relevant criteria prescribed in Directive 09/20 and legislation.  Those efforts allow for the achievement of the purpose of Directive 09/20.
  1. [61]
    It follows that there are no genuine operational reasons that would otherwise prevent Miss McCarthy from being converted to permanent employment.

Conclusion

  1. [62]
    For the reasons detailed above, I find that the decision to maintain Miss McCarthy on a temporary contract was not fair and reasonable.
  1. [63]
    With regards to the discretions available to me to conclude this matter, I determine that the most appropriate course of action is to set the decision aside and substitute another decision. I note that Miss McCarthy sought the matter be returned to the Respondent for another review, however I acknowledge the Respondent's comments that should that be the case, it will not alter the original outcome because the circumstances have not changed since the original decision. This evinces an unwillingness to conduct a formal review and regardless, I am persuaded that substituting the decision is the most appropriate remedy.
  1. [64]
    I order accordingly.

Orders:

That pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld):

  1. The appeal is allowed;
  1. The decision that Miss McCarthy not have her temporary employment converted to permanent employment is set aside and another decision is substituted; and
  1. Miss McCarthy's temporary employment status be converted to permanent employment.

Footnotes

[1] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 149B(4)(b).

[2] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(4)(b).

[5] Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252, [60]-[61].

[6] Throughout the Respondent's submissions, reference is made to a cessation date of 8 November 2022. However, in an email dated 22 February 2021, the Respondent clarified this is a typographical error and should instead read '8 November 2021'.

[7] Katae v State of Queensland & Anor [2018] QSC 225, [26].

[8] This is also mirrored in s 149A(3) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    McCarthy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • Shortened Case Name:

    McCarthy v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 266

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    McLennan IC

  • Date:

    02 Aug 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
Katae v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 225
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 225
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 225
Page v Thompson [2014] QSC 252
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QSC 252
Cite 2 - [2014] QSC 252

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Burchall v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 1831 citation
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.