Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. Westacott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2021] QIRC 417

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

Westacott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2021] QIRC 417

Westacott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2021] QIRC 417

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Westacott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 417

PARTIES:

Westacott, Lorraine

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2021/257

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Conversion of fixed term temporary employment

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2021

MEMBER:

Dwyer IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

  1. The decision appealed against is set aside;
  1. The matter is returned to the decision-maker; and
  1. The Department’s Chief Executive or their delegate is directed to take all steps necessary to ensure that any further reviews of the Appellant’s employment status pursuant to s 149B of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) are performed in strict compliance with the provisions of the statute.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – APPEAL – fixed term temporary contract – eligibility for review – deemed refusal decision – additional review decision at initiative of employer – decision not to convert – timeframes for when chief executive must make a decision – decision premature – decision not fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment cl 12

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

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 51, 194, 149, 149A, 149B, 149C, 293, 294, 294A

CASES:

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10

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

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

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    Since 5 January 2009, Dr Lorraine Westacott has held a range of temporary medical officer positions within Metro North Hospital and Health Service ('MNHHS') and Queensland Health ('the Department'). Relevantly, Dr Westacott has been continuously employed in temporary positions with the Department since 19 February 2018.
  1. [2]
    Between 16 March 2020 and 31 January 2021, Dr Westacott was employed in the vacant position of Deputy Executive Director Medical Services ('DEDMS') at the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital ('the RBWH'). She remained in this position until the contract ended on 31 January 2021.
  1. [3]
    The Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ('the PS Act') was amended in 2020 and the amendments took effect on 14 September 2020 during Dr Westacott's employment at the RBWH. The (amended) PS Act introduced s 149B. Dr Westacott was an employee to whom the transitional provisions of the (amended) PS Act potentially applied.[1]
  1. [4]
    The Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment ('the Directive') commenced on 25 September 2020, also during Dr Westacott's tenure at the RBWH. The Directive largely echoes the provisions of s 149B of the PS Act.
  1. [5]
    It seems that the commencement of the Directive was the trigger for Dr Westacott's awareness of (what she considered to be) an opportunity for her to seek conversion.  According to her appeal notice, Dr Westacott made several verbal inquiries as to the progress of the review of her status in the latter part of 2020. Further, Dr Westacott contends that she verbally made a formal request for a review of her employment status on 17 December 2020.[2]
  1. [6]
    It would appear that despite assurances as to the nature and timing of the review, no action was taken by the Department to commence it until in or about May 2021. The Department's submissions do not explain their failure to make a decision following Dr Westacott's formal request for review of her employment status on 17 December 2020. The review conducted in May 2021 appears to be unrelated to the request made on 17 December 2020.
  1. [7]
    On or about 6 May 2021, Dr Westacott became aware that the Department was conducting reviews of all senior medical officers ('SMO'). It is not clear how she was aware though it is apparent that the commencement of the review process predates her correspondence of 6 May 2021. Relevantly, by this time, Dr Westacott had commenced a new role at Redcliffe in the position of Acting Director Research and Medical Education, and Registrar Medical Administration.
  1. [8]
    On 6 May 2021, having learned of the review underway, Dr Westacott submitted correspondence to the Department containing a submission citing the Directive and setting out her concerns about the timing of the review given her role had changed since her eligibility for review arose in September 2020 (as she understood it).
  1. [9]
    The submission was addressed to Dr Amanda Dines, Acting Director of Medical Services at Redcliffe Hospital. On 7 May 2021, Dr Dines replied and confirmed that there was a review underway. Dr Dines further responded to Dr Westacott's submissions about the timing of the review and advised she was unable to undertake a review of Dr Westacott's employment in the context of the role performed by Dr Westacott as at September 2020. Dr Dines stated that she was not a delegate of the RBWH and she was unable to assess her circumstances from her eligibility date of 25 September 2020 but would include her letter of 6 May 2021 with her assessment for the consideration by HR Services.
  1. [10]
    There is nothing in the review notice supplied by Dr Dines on 7 May 2021 that explains why the review was purportedly being conducted in May 2021. The correspondence expressly states that the review is being conducted pursuant to s 149B of the PS Act. 
  1. [11]
    On 9 July 2021, Dr Westacott received correspondence from Dr Dines advising her that a review had been conducted and that she would continue as a fixed term temporary employee with the Department ('the decision').
  1. [12]
    The reasons for the decision were set out as follows:

I refer to my letter to you dated 7 May 2021, regarding your eligibility for review of your fixed term temporary employment to determine if you should be converted to permanent employment with Metro North Health.

Conversion review decision

This letter is to advise that on 7 May 2021, I conducted a review of your employment status and based on the outcome of the review, after reference to Workforce Advisory Services, I have determined that your employment will remain as fixed term temporary at this time.

…

The decision not to permanently appoint you is based on continuing staffing needs at this time. Specifically, my reasons are there is no continuing need for you to perform the role because the substantive incumbent has returned to duty such that the role is filled on a permanent basis.

I have considered the conditions for conversion in the Public Service Act 2008 and determined that it is not viable or appropriate to convert you at this time due to the genuine operational requirements of the Service.

You will continue to be engaged according to the terms of your existing employment arrangement.

  1. [13]
    In response to the decision, Dr Westacott filed an appeal notice on 20 July 2021 with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission'). In her appeal, she contended that:
  • She became eligible for employer-initiated review immediately upon the date of 25 September 2021, at the time when she was employed as Deputy Executive Director of Medical Services ('DEDMS') at the RBWH;
  • The RBWH has two longstanding established DEDMS positions, one of which became vacant in November 2019 when the incumbent resigned. Dr Westacott was employed in the position from March 2020 to January 2021;
  • The permanent incumbent in the second position is employed as a non-specialist SMO. Dr Westacott possesses an Associate Fellowship with the Royal Australasian College of Medical Administrators ('FRACMA'), nearing completion of a full fellowship. The Department has not uniformly applied the requirement of a full fellowship in medical administrative roles, and she has been employed as a non-specialist SMO in similar roles in Redcliffe;
  • After the effective date of the Directive, Dr Westacott made several verbal enquiries with the RBWH and Metro North Medical Recruitment Units regarding her eligibility for review and anticipated commencement date. She notes she was informed that the RBWH expected to "soon" finalise the processes for a review to occur;
  • In December 2020, out of concern of a review not being undertaken prior to the end of her contract, Dr Westacott specifically enquired about whether a review would be conducted in the context of her employment at the time the review should have occurred, and if a review could be commenced. In response, she notes it was strongly implied it was reasonable to expect the review would be conducted in that context;
  • Seven weeks later, Dr Westacott enquired about the progress of her review and was informed it had been interpreted as an assurance that it would be conducted in the first cohort of SMOs to undergo an employer-initiated review;
  • A review was commenced on 7 May 2021 and as her employment circumstances had changed, Dr Westacott provided a submission for consideration as part of her review on 6 May 2021;
  • A decision was provided on 9 July 2021 which contained no evidence that her submission of 6 May 2021 was considered, the review was not undertaken in the context of her employment at the time the review should have been undertaken, and the employer has not provided reasons why the delay was fair and reasonable;
  • A duration of four months between when she was eligible for review and the end date of her contract was ample time for the Department to undertake a review as required by the Directive and proper process as to timeframes has not been followed; and
  • Dr Westacott is now unfairly disadvantaged by the delay in commencing the review and it not being undertaken in the context of her employment at the time she was eligible, in a position which had a permanent and funded vacancy with a continuing need for a person in the position.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [14]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the Commission may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. (b)
    for an appeal against a promotion decision - set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted; or
  1. (c)
    for another appeal - set the decision aside and substitute another decision or return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Nature of appeal

  1. [15]
    Under Chapter 11 of the IR Act, the role of the Commission is to review the decision appealed against.[3] The IR Act does not define the term 'review'. The term 'review' will take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[4]
  1. [16]
    An appeal under Chapter 11, of the IR Act is not a rehearing of the matter,[5] but rather, it is a review of the decision and the decision-making process.[6] The purpose of such an appeal is to have the Commission decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[7]
  1. [17]
    The issue for my determination in the matter before me is whether the decision to refuse to convert Dr Westacott's temporary employment was fair and reasonable.[8]
  1. [18]
    For the reasons set out below, I have determined that the decision was not fair and reasonable.

Submissions of the parties

  1. [19]
    The parties filed written submissions in accordance with a Directions Order dated 20 July 2021. The parties' submissions primarily concern the genuine operational requirements of the Department and Dr Westacott's eligibility to be appointed to the position with the RBWH.
  2. [20]
    Neither party directly addressed the operation of s 149B or the transitional provisions of the PS Act and their application to Dr Westacott's situation. Both parties have misunderstood the operation and application of s 149B of the PS Act.
  1. [21]
    For reasons that will become apparent, I do not intend to summarise the parties' submissions at length as they are of no assistance to the resolution of this appeal.

Consideration

Section 149B generally

  1. [22]
    The decision under review follows a review of Dr Westacott's employment status purportedly pursuant to s 149B of the PS Act.
  1. [23]
    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. (2)
    However, this section does not apply to a non-industrial instrument employee.
  1. (3)
    The department’s chief executive must decide whether to—
  1. (a)
    continue the person’s employment according to the terms of the person’s existing employment; or
  1. (b)
    offer to convert the person’s employment basis to employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer.
  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)
    If the department’s chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have decided not to offer to convert the person’s employment and to continue the person’s employment as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee according to the terms of the employee’s existing employment.

…

  1. (9)
    In this section—

…

required period, for making a decision under subsection (3), 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 end of the period mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b).
  1. [24]
    It is important to note that s 149B operates in a different fashion to s 149 and s 149C of the PS Act. In each of s 149 and s 149C of the PS Act, a review of an employee's status is initiated by a request from the employee.[9]
  1. [25]
    By contrast, s 149B of the PS Act imposes a statutory obligation on the department's chief executive to undertake a review. Not only must the department's chief executive undertake the review, but they must do so within a stipulated time frame.
  1. [26]
    Further, this statutory obligation is activated exclusively by reference to the length of continuous employment of an employee. That is to say, the review contemplated by s 149B is not activated by the actions (or at the discretion) of the department's chief executive or the employee but rather, it is an obligation that arises immediately upon the completion of two years continuous service, and then again on each 12 month anniversary of continuous service after that date.
  1. [27]
    Not only is this obligation on the department chief executive to conduct the review an obligation that is automatically activated by the requisite period of continuous service after the nominated period, but the timing for a review and a decision is a statutory obligation that cannot be varied by the department's chief executive at their discretion or even with consent of the employee.

Section 149B and the transitional provisions

  1. [28]
    However, while the operation of s 149B is unambiguous for the purposes of its general application, its application in respect of Dr Westacott is less straight forward. The application of s 149B to existing casual and temporary employees at the time of commencement is dealt with in the transitional provisions contained in the PS Act.  
  1. [29]
    Relevantly, ss 293, 294 and 294A provide as follows:

293  Application of s 149 for existing temporary or casual employees

  1. (1)
    This section applies if - 
  1. (a)
    immediately before the commencement, a person was employed as a relevant employee in a department; and
  1. (b)
    the person - 
  1. (i)
    has, on the commencement, been continuously employed as a relevant employee for a period of at least 1 year but not more than 2 years; or
  1. (ii)
    within 3 months after the commencement, would have been continuously employed as a relevant employee for a period of at least 1 year if the amending Act had not commenced.
  1. (2)
    The person may ask the departments chief executive for a decision under section 149(3) within - 
  1. (a)
    3 months after the commencement; or
  1. (b)
    if a longer period for a particular class of employees of which the person is a member is agreed between the departments chief executive and an employee organisation for the class of employee, and approved by the commission chief executive - the longer period.
  1. (3)
    For applying section 149 to the person -
  1. (a)
    a reference in section 149 to a fixed term temporary employee is taken to include a reference to the person; and
  1. (b)
    the period for which the person was continuously employed as a relevant employee is to be taken into account for working out the period for which the person has been continuously employed in the department.
  1. (4)
    The department’s chief executive must decide the request within 28 days after the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) ends.

294 Continuation of previous section 149 for particular temporary employees

  1. (1)
    This section applies if—
  1. (a)
    a temporary employee was, under section 149 as in force immediately before the commencement, entitled to a decision by the chief executive; and
  1. (b)
    on the commencement, the decision has not been made.
  1. (2)
    Section 149, as in force immediately before the commencement, continues to apply in relation to the employee.

294A Application of s 149B for existing temporary and casual employees

  1. (1)
    This section applies in relation to a person if - 
  1. (a)
    immediately before the commencement, the person was an employee employed on a temporary or casual basis in a department under former section 147 or 148; and
  1. (b)
    the day that is the end of 2 years of continuous employment in the department by the person occurs on or after the commencement; and
  1. (c)
    section 293 does not apply to the person, or the person does not ask for a decision under that section.
  1. (2)
    Section 149B applies in relation to the person.

Section 294A

  1. [30]
    As the Department has purported to conduct a review pursuant to s 149B I will deal firstly with the transitional provisions for that section. Section 294A determines which existing casual and temporary employees s 149B applies to.

 

  1. [31]
    It would appear that Dr Westacott would meet the criteria of s 294A(1)(a) and (c). Whether Dr Westacott meets the criteria of s 294A(1)(b) is more problematic.
  1. [32]
    Section 294A(1)(b) uses the specific terminology:

the day that is the end of 2 years of continuous employment in the department by the person occurs on or after the commencement

  1. [33]
    Section 294A(1)(b) limits the application of s 149B because of its reference to a specific day i.e. the day that is the end of 2 years continuous service. That 'day' will be readily identifiable in the case of any given temporary employee. In Dr Westacott's case, having regard to the table contained in the Department's submissions,[10] 19 February 2018 is identified as the commencement of her continuous service.
  1. [34]
    Further, s 294A(1)(b) refers specifically to '2 years' continuous service, not e.g. 'at least 2 years' or '2 or more years'.[11] The express and exclusive reference to 2 years must be read in a limiting way in that context.
  1. [35]
    In those circumstances the day that is the end of 2 years continuous service for Dr Westacott would be the day after the last day the 2-year period from her commencement i.e. 20 February 2020.
  1. [36]
    The language used in s 294A(1)(b) of the PS Act has the effect of ensuring that the application of s 149B is not of unlimited retrospective application i.e. s 149B does not immediately apply on commencement to all employees with 2 or more years continuous service. In the circumstances, s 149B applies to employees who were continuously casually or temporarily employed on or after 13 September 2018, but not before that date.
  1. [37]
    Further, it is not the case that s 149B can never apply to Dr Westacott. The reference to 2 years continuous employment contained at s 294A(1)(b) is anchored in the context of the sub-section to 'the commencement date'. Accordingly, 2 years continuous service is not a reference to actual service but rather, to continuous service from the commencement date, i.e. 14 September 2020.
  1. [38]
    Assuming she remains continuously employed (and is not converted to permanent in the interim) s 149B will apply to Dr Westacott from 14 September 2022.
  1. [39]
    For completeness, I note that the Directive refers to s 294A. The Directive relevantly provides:[12]

Section 294A sets out the transitional arrangements for temporary or casual employees who are eligible for review of their status after two years continuous employment under section 149B. 

  1. [40]
    The Directive merely refers to s 294A and purports to describe its application. The Directive does not attempt to extend or modify the effect of s 294A and the consequent application of s 149B in a way that would e.g. evoke s 51(2) of the PS Act and allow for a more generous and wider application of s 149B.
  1. [41]
    In those circumstances, s 149B can have had no application to Dr Westacott either at the time of the review conducted in May/June 2021 or previously. Dr Westacott's assertion that she was entitled to be reviewed in the context of her employment in September 2020 is misconceived. I will address the consequences of this conclusion later in these reasons.

Section 293

  1. [42]
    The second of the transitional provisions of the PS Act that might have had some application to Dr Westacott is s 293. Dr Westacott arguably falls within the criteria stipulated at s 293(1) given she was a temporary employee who, within 3 months after commencement, had been continuously employed for at least 1 year.[13] 
  1. [43]
    Section 293 appears to be intended to protect the rights of casual and temporary employees who had, or were about to acquire, a right to seek conversion under s 149 of the pre-amendment PS Act. Section 293(2) provides such application can be made by a relevant employee within 3 months after commencement i.e. by 14 December 2020.
  1. [44]
    Dr Westacott made a verbal request for conversion on 17 December 2020. It does not appear that Dr Westacott stipulated the statutory basis of her request though I would not consider this would invalidate a request made effectively pursuant to s 149 of the PS Act provided the employee met the pre-requisites. 
  1. [45]
    In any event, Dr Westacott made her request 3 days outside the limit stipulated in s 293(2)(a). Dr Westacott's request on 17 December 2020 is not a request of the type contemplated by s 293 of the PS Act and (for the purposes of s 294A(1)(c)) she did not ask for a decision under s 293.
  1. [46]
    In the circumstances, the request made by Dr Westacott would more properly be characterised as a request in accordance with s 149(3) of the post-amendment PS Act.  If that is correct, then by virtue of s 149A(1) a decision must be made within 28 days of the request i.e. 14 January 2021. No decision was made. Pursuant to s 149A(5) the Department's failure to make a decision was a deemed decision to refuse conversion.   
  1. [47]
    I note that Dr Westacott has not appealed that deemed decision and is now well out of time to do so. I further note that the deemed decision is not a decision that is the subject of this appeal. I therefore do not intend to deal with the request for review made on 17 December 2020 or the deemed decision any further in these reasons.
  1. [48]
    The decision under review in this appeal is a decision purportedly made pursuant to s 149B of the PS Act on or about 29 June 2021. 

Consideration

  1. [49]
    As noted above, s 149B contains mandatory obligations for review that are governed by explicit and inflexible timeframes.
  1. [50]
    Curiously, the Department (at its own initiative) purported to conduct a review and make a decision pursuant to s 149B between May and June 2021. There is no submission from the Department explaining the rationale for the timing of this review. The difficulty with this for the Department is that, while employers and employees are at liberty to negotiate and mutually agree (at any time) to vary conditions and terms of employment, the PS Act provides no basis for a review to be conducted pursuant to s 149B outside of the expressly nominated timings for such reviews.
  1. [51]
    Further, as I have concluded above, Dr Westacott does not meet the criteria for consideration under s 149B of the PS Act until 14 September 2022. I would add here that, to the extent I may be wrong about that date, it will not alter my conclusion that the date for a s 149B review of Dr Westacott's status was most definitely not May 2021. 
  1. [52]
    Sections 149B(3) and (4) of the PS Act express the obligations of a department's chief executive as mandatory by virtue of the use of the term 'must'. Section 149B(3) and (4) of the PS Act are clear, unambiguous and entirely specific in their language. There is no room for a construction of these terms that allows any flexibility as to the obligations of the chief executive and the timing in which those obligations must be discharged. The consent of the parties cannot displace the statutory obligation to make a decision within the specified time.
  1. [53]
    To be completely clear: in broad terms, the Department is not prevented from undertaking reviews of employment status and conversion of employment (where each party consents) at a time of its own choosing. But such mutually agreed reviews (however structured) are not reviews conducted or decisions made for the purpose of discharging the mandatory requirements for review of status set out in s 149B if they occur outside of the explicitly stipulated timing requirements set out in s 149B(4).
  1. [54]
    While the review of Dr Westacott's status might be legitimate in the context of the broader employment relationship, it was simply not open to the Department to nominate the time when they chose to formally discharge their obligations under s 149B. The PS Act expressly prescribes when and how they must do that, and it does so with no options for discretion or flexibility. Importantly, the prescribed timing for reviews and decisions will dictate the timing of future reviews and decisions.
  1. [55]
    Further, this conclusion does not mean that the entire review process undertaken by the Department was not a 'decision' pursuant to s 194(1)(e) of the PS Act. It clearly was a decision that purported to be made in strict compliance with the obligations arising from s 149B. But it was a review and decision in accordance with s 149B that was prematurely conducted.
  1. [56]
    By purporting to conduct a review in accordance with s 149B of the PS Act in May 2021, the Department has undertaken its statutory obligations prematurely. Further, the decision not to convert Dr Westacott to permanent employment is wholly grounded in operational considerations that were unique to the role she was performing at the time of their review. In those circumstances, Dr Westacott has been potentially deprived of the benefit of a review in different employment circumstances e.g. on 14 September 2022.
  1. [57]
    While there is no telling whether the employment circumstances of Dr Westacott in September 2022 will be more or less likely to result in conversion to permanent employment, the fact remains that the decision made in June/July 2021 is likely to be an entirely different decision by comparison to any decision made in a different employment context at that later date.
  1. [58]
    Dr Westacott must have her status reviewed at the time specified by s 149B of the PS Act and not at the timing chosen by the Department.
  1. [59]
    In all of those circumstances, I consider the decision was made prematurely having regard to the provisions of s 149B of the PS Act. The decision is underpinned by a significant technical deficiency but it equally produces an unfair result for Dr Westacott. In those circumstances I can reach no other conclusion other than that the decision was not fair and reasonable.

Disposition of appeal

  1. [60]
    This is an unusual matter. While I have concluded the decision was unfair and unreasonable, the only proper remedy for the Department's error is to set the decision aside and return the matter with a direction that the Department undertake any further s 149B reviews strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute. In practical terms this will mean that Dr Westacott's status will not be reviewed pursuant to s 149B until 14 September 2022.
  1. [61]
    As unsatisfactory as I expect this outcome might seem for Dr Westacott, I note that s 149B is not the only avenue of review of her status that will be open to her in the intervening period. Having made a formal request for a review of her status on 17 December 2020 (as per her entitlement to do so under s 149(3)), Dr Westacott will be eligible to make a fresh request for a review of her status pursuant to s 149(3) of the PS Act at any time of her choosing after 17 December 2021.[14]
  1. [62]
    In the circumstances, I consider that the most appropriate disposition of this appeal is to set the decision aside and to return the matter to the decision-maker with appropriate directions.

Order

  1. [63]
    In the circumstances I make the following orders:
  1. The decision appealed against is set aside;
  1. The matter is returned to the decision-maker; and
  1. The Department’s Chief Executive or their delegate is directed to take all steps necessary to ensure that any further reviews of the Appellant’s employment status pursuant to s 149B of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) are performed in strict compliance with the provisions of the statute.

Footnotes

[1] See Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 292-294A.

[2] See Part C, Paragraph 5 of the Appeal Notice. Note further, Dr Westacott only nominates December 2020 in her appeal notice, but subsequently clarified via email that the date of her formal request was 17 December 2020. 

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

[4] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10.

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

[6] Ibid.

[7]  Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3).

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

[9] See Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 149(3), 149C(3).

[10] See Submissions of the Respondent filed 17 August 2021, paragraph 6.

[11] Contrast with e.g. Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 293(1)(b)(ii) or 149(1).

[12] Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment cl 12.2.

[13] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 293(1)(b)(ii).

[14] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 149(4).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Westacott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Westacott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 417

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Dwyer IC

  • Date:

    08 Dec 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 and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] HCA 10
Cite 2 - [1995] HCA 10
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
Costello v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2025] QIRC 932 citations
In the termination of the Barcoo Shire Council Local Government Operational Employees' Certified Agreement 2021-2024 [2025] QIRC 832 citations
Talbot v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 103 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.