Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2021
  4. McNab v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) - [2021] QIRC 77

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

McNab v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency)[2021] QIRC 77

McNab v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency)[2021] QIRC 77

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

McNab v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) [2021] QIRC 077

PARTIES:

McNab, Kendall Jade

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2021/2

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Conversion to higher classification level

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2021

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Power IC

On the papers

OUTCOME:

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

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – where the appellant was reviewed under s 149C of the Public Service Act 2008 – where decision is deemed under s 149C(6) – consideration of 'genuine operational requirement'

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 27B

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

Public Safety Business Agency Act 2014 (Qld)

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), ss 149C, 194 and 196

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

CASES:

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

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

Lee v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) [2021] QIRC 13

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

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Ms Kendall Jade McNab (the Appellant) is currently employed in a higher duties classification as an AO6, Senior Project Officer (Planning and Property), Property and Facilities Management, Asset and Procurement Services for the State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) (PSBA, the Respondent).
  1. [2]
    The Appellant appeals a deemed decision by the Respondent that her employment is to continue according to the terms of her higher duties arrangement pursuant to s 194(1)(e)(iii) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) (the PS Act).

Appeal principles

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

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [7]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Industrial Commissioner may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. (b)
    set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or
  1. (c)
    set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision-maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [8]
    The Appellant outlined the following grounds of appeal, in summary:
  • the decision is unfair and unreasonable as the decision-maker failed to:
  1. (a)
    make a decision required to be made under the PS Act within the required period;
  1. (b)
    consider the mandatory criteria under the PS Act for such a decision;
  1. (c)
    provide a written notice of the decision;
  1. (d)
    provide written reasons of the decision including the findings on material questions of fact; and
  1. (e)
    refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based; and
  • the decision-maker has not considered the genuine operational requirements of the Respondent as required by s 149C(4A) of the PS Act and the Appellant's work remains a genuine operational requirement of the Respondent and continues to be required by the State of Queensland.
  1. [9]
    The Appellant seeks for the decision to be set aside and the following decision to be substituted in accordance with s 562C(1)(c) of the IR Act:

That Kendall McNab be appointed to the role of Senior Project Officer at the AO6 level as a public service officer.

The relevant provisions of the PS Act and the Directive

  1. [10]
    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. [11]
    The Directive relevantly provides:
  1. Decision making

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Statement of reasons

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

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

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

Submissions

  1. [12]
    The Commission issued a Directions Order calling for submissions from both parties following receipt of the appeal notice.

Appellant's submissions

  1. [13]
    The Appellant filed submissions in support of the appeal. A summary of those submissions are as follows:
  • the Appellant was provided with a written decision from the Respondent on 7 January 2021 after the appeal was lodged and all parties were notified of the appeal. The Respondent's decision states:

This temporary position currently expires on 30 June 2021 and is not permanently funded. Funding is allocated from the agency’s capital works programs and the requirement for the temporary AO6 role is dependent on each annual capital works program and approval of funding from the agencies.

Due to the genuine operational requirements of the agency at this time, you are to continue to be engaged according to the terms of your existing higher duties arrangement.

As you are aware, on 7 September 2020 the State Government publicly announced the disestablishment of PSBA and the repealing of the establishing legislation to ultimately occur prior to 30 June 2021. All positions and staffing are currently being reviewed for redistribution to the various agencies over the coming months.

Whilst all temporary to permanent and higher classification level conversions remain the ultimate responsibility of PSBA until the legislation is repealed, these decisions are not made in isolation and are considered in consultation with each portfolio agency as to their individual genuine operating environment.

As a result of this decision not to convert you to the higher classification level at this time, you will continue in the role of Senior Project Officer - Property & Planning until the PSBA is disestablished or until the operational requirements of the agency are reviewed.

  • the Respondent's functions and employees are being transferred/redistributed to the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES);
  • QPS and QFES have a genuine operational requirement to continue to hold, maintain and manage their respective property portfolios, and to deliver their forward Capital Works Programs, which have continued funding for up to five financial years;
  • the Appellant outlined her skills, experience and qualifications as an urban development professional which are transferrable across the entire asset management life cycle, including acquisition, statutory planning and environment approvals, construction management and delivery, property and facilities management, residential and commercial leasing and disposal of an asset;
  • the Appellant submits that she is one of two qualified Urban and Regional Planners within the Respondent in an AO6 Senior Project Officer role. There is a genuine operational requirement for the Appellant's role to continue, regardless of whether the Appellant is transferred to QPS or QFES;
  • the Appellant submits that the decision should not be made in isolation of the Respondent's genuine operational requirements and consider the requirements of the State of Queensland, particularly QPS and QFES;
  • the AO6 Senior Project Officer (Planning and Property), temporary position was created in August 2016. The Appellant has been acting in this role since October 2018. The role has continued to be annually funded by the Capital Works Program of QPS and QFES for five consecutive financial years and the Capital Works Program is expected to continue to be funded for an additional, and up to, five financial years; and
  • the Appellant refers to a notable case dated 18 July 2017 – Conversion of temporary employee to permanent; consideration of ongoing funding. Although this case is for a review of temporary employment, the principle still applies for an appointment to a higher classification decision, as insecure funding is the basis for that decision. The implications of this decision for agencies conclude that a history of ongoing funding could be considered as indicative of an ongoing requirement for the role and that Queensland Government agencies are not considered an uncertain funding source.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [14]
    The Respondent filed submissions in response to the Appellant's submissions, in summary:
  • section 149C of the PS Act require a chief executive to make a decision, within the required period, either to refuse or agree to the conversion of an employee and provide reasons for a refusal. The subsequent provisions of the legislation reference the mandatory requirements that need to be undertaken by the action to 'decide';
  • however, the terminology under s 149C(6) of the PS Act clearly demonstrates that 'the decision' is a specific action associated with subsection (4) that invokes the provisions under ss 149C(4A) and (5). Only when the decision has been made to refuse the request to convert is there a requirement for a notice under subsection (5) to be provided to the employee. Under s 149C(6), 'the decision' is not made and a deeming provision applies;
  • in the case of the Appellant, no decision was made by the chief executive and the matter became deemed to be refused due to the effluxion of time. The specific requirements that would need to be actioned (i.e. under subsections (4), (4A) and (5)) are not imputed to subsection (6) for 'the decision' has not been made. The Respondent submits that there is no requirement upon the chief executive to provide written notice and the Appellant's employment in the Senior Project Officer role continues until 30 June 2021;
  • the Directive is a statutory instrument and is to be considered in interpreting and assisting in the interpretation of the legislative provisions under s 149C of the PS Act;
  • clause 6.3 of the Directive elaborates on the outcome of the deeming provisions of s 149C(6) of the PS Act and also refers to 'the decision' which, under the Directive, is imputed back to clauses 6.1 and 6.2, both referring to the making of the decision regarding the request for conversion;
  • clause 7 of the Directive identifies two separate approaches in respect of an outcome to a request. Clause 7.1 makes it a requirement that upon deciding to refuse a request, the chief executive must provide a written notice in accordance with s 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld);
  • the Respondent submits that in contrast, and very specifically, clause 7.2 of the Directive states that a written notice is not required to be prepared 'after the fact' to support a deemed decision made under clause 6.3. The statement is clear on the intent that no written notice is required if a decision is not made within the required period and the chief executive has therefore deemed to have refused the request and the employee making the request for conversion is to continue according to the terms of the existing secondment or higher duties arrangement;
  • the Appellant's suggestion that the correspondence from the Respondent on 7 January 2021 is a decision is misconceived. The decision of the Respondent is the deemed decision under s 149C(6) of the PS Act that occurred in December 2020 and is the decision under appeal;[5]
  • the Respondent submits that in accordance with the legislative arrangements and the Directive, the Appellant does not have the right to have a written decision made on a deeming provision. As a consequence of the deemed decision, the Appellant will retain their current arrangements as Senior Project Officer until 30 June 2021;
  • the correspondence provided to the Appellant on 7 January 2021, and after the date of the deemed decision, is useful only as '…other evidence to be taken into account'.[6] The issue raised in the correspondence from the Respondent on 7 January 2021 identify ongoing funding to the Respondent for Capital Works Programs from the portfolio departments and transitional arrangements currently occurring where officers from the Respondent are being placed into the respective portfolio departments as the Respondent progresses through disestablishment;
  • although the Appellant argues that continued funding under Capital Works Programs can be considered criteria for ongoing positions, the Respondent's funding arrangements under the Capital Works Programs of the portfolio departments is reviewed annually and funding provided to the Respondent is based on that annual funding. Irrespective of the outyear Capital Works Programs identified in Government Budget Papers and Ministerial announcements, the funding provided to the Respondent to maintain the Capital Works Program is not aligned to each department's five year plans but relies on annual departmental funding; and
  • the Respondent submits that as positions are transitioned into the respective portfolio departments, it will be the individual department requirements that will dictate their resourcing models and classification levels. The current project work being undertaken by the Appellant will revert to the departments. While Capital Works Programs will be in place for the departments, resourcing of those work units will be in the bailiwick of each department.

Appellant's submissions in reply

  1. [15]
    The Appellant, in accordance with the Directions Order, filed submissions in reply to the Respondent's submissions, in summary:
  • the Public Safety Business Agency Act 2014 (Qld) is currently in effect, and there is chance that Cabinet will delay the repeal of the legislation post 30 June 2021. This will result in the Appellant's contract being extended, potentially past October 2021 and the Appellant would have been acting in the position for three years;
  • the Appellant submits that it is unfair and unreasonable for the Respondent to refuse a request on the basis that "as positions are transitioned into the respective portfolio departments, it will be the individual department requirements that dictate their resourcing models and classification levels" in the circumstances where:
  1. (a)
    there have been employees in the Appellant's team, delivering the Capital Works Programs, that were successful in their request to be appointed permanently since the announcement of the disestablishment of the Respondent. This indicates that the disestablishment and transition did not impact the genuine operational requirement of these requests;
  1. (b)
    the requirement for the Appellant's position is on-going and will continue with the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services or Queensland Police Service; and
  1. (c)
    the Public Safety Business Agency Act 2014 (Qld) has not been repealed to date;
  • the Appellant submits that it is notable that the Respondent has provided a notice of their decision to the Appellant, despite the Respondent's argument that no notice was required as a deemed decision had been made;
  • the Appellant submits that in deciding on this matter, the Commission is to consider the purpose under s 3 of the PS Act. The purpose of the PS Act includes the employment and management of public service employees and to provide for the rights and obligations of public service employees. The purpose is qualified through s 25 of the PS Act with public service employment being directed towards promoting an equitable and flexible working environment where all public service employees are treated fairly and reasonably; and
  • the Respondent has noted that clause 7.3 of the Directive does not require notice for a deemed decision made under clause 6.3. The Appellant submits that it is incongruous that a right of appeal exists for a deemed decision for which no notice, and therefore no reasons are required to be provided by the Respondent, which conflicts with the principles and purpose of the PS Act in providing for the rights of public service employees.

Consideration

  1. [16]
    A decision following a review of the Appellant's request to be appointed at the higher classification level was required to be made pursuant to s 149C of the PS Act. Such a decision was not made by the Respondent within the required period pursuant to s 149C(6) of the PS Act.
  1. [17]
    The Appellant submits that the correspondence from the Respondent dated 7 January 2021 was the decision in response to the Appellant's request for conversion in 11 November 2020. Any correspondence forwarded beyond the 28 day time period may be considered additional information with respect to the decision not to convert the employment, however it is not considered to be the actual decision. The decision in this matter is the deemed decision.
  1. [18]
    The chief executive of the Respondent was taken to have made a decision against which the Appellant can appeal.[7] The Appellant has subsequently filed an appeal notice and submission have been filed by both parties. The deemed decision to not appoint the Appellant to the higher classification level must be reviewed to determine if it is fair and reasonable. 
  1. [19]
    I note the Appellant's submission that the decision cannot be considered fair and reasonable because of the Respondent's failure to consider the mandatory criteria in the PS Act and the Directive. In my view, the provision that the chief executive is 'taken to have refused the request' to appoint the Appellant to the higher classification level[8] and provision that the deemed decision may be appealed indicates that the decision should not be summarily dismissed as unfair and unreasonable. The Directive clearly contemplates circumstances in which a deemed decision is made and is then subject to an appeal.
  1. [20]
    Section 149C(6) of the PS Act provides the following:
  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. [21]
    Clause 6.3 of the Directive provides the following:

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.

  1. [22]
    Both s 149C(6) of the PS Act and clause 6.3 of the Directive contemplate circumstances in which a decision has not been made with respect to a conversion. In these circumstances, the employment continues according to the terms of the existing arrangement.
  1. [23]
    The 'decision' is a specific action associated with subsection (4) that invokes the provisions under s 149C(4A) and (5) of the PS Act. The requirement for a notice pursuant to subsection (5) applies only when a decision has been made to refuse the request for conversion. The specific requirements that are mandatory[9] following a decision do not apply to subsection (6) as the 'decision' has not been made. 
  1. [24]
    The Directive outlines the requirements for 'Statement of Reasons' in clause 7 (emphasis added):

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. [25]
    Where a chief executive decides to refuse a request, clause 7.1 requires that a notice be provided to the employee in accordance with s 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). However, clause 7.2 clearly states that a written notice is not required to be provided to support a deemed decision.
  1. [26]
    In consideration of both clause 7.2 of the Directive and the interpretation of s 149C(6) of the PS Act, the Respondent was not obliged to provide the Appellant with a written notice in these circumstances.
  1. [27]
    Although I am of the view that there is no statutory requirement that reasons be furnished if the decision is deemed in accordance with s 149C(6) of the PS Act, a fair appeal process relies upon the Appellant being made aware of the Respondent's determinations for the outcome of the employment review. I am satisfied that the Appellant has had the opportunity to examine the Respondent's submissions and the letter dated 7 January 2021, outlining the considerations of the employment review and was afforded the opportunity to provide submissions in reply.

Genuine operational requirements

  1. [28]
    The PS Act requires that in making the decision, the decision-maker must have regard to the following pursuant to s 149C(4A):
  1. (a)
    the genuine operational requirements of the department; and
  2. (b)
    the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of employment at the higher classification level.
  1. [29]
    As no decision has previously been made under s 149C(4A)(b) of the PS Act, the relevant consideration for the Respondent is with respect to the genuine operational requirements of the department. As outlined by Deputy President Merrell in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) (Morison),[10] the phrase '… genuine operational requirements of the department' in s 149C(4A)(a) of the PS Act and in clause 6.2(a) of the Directive, construed in context, would at least include consideration of the following:

… whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department, to appoint an employee, who has been assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level in the department for the requisite period of time, to '…the position at the higher classification level.'[11]

  1. [30]
    The Respondent submits that the current process involving the proposed disestablishment of the PSBA is a genuine operational reason to decline conversion of the Appellant to the higher classification position. The Respondent's submission referred to the Queensland Government's public announcement that the PSBA would soon be disestablished.[12] The Respondent submits that as a consequence of this imminent disestablishment, all staffing positions are currently being review for transitioning to either QPS or QFES. The Respondent contends that this constitutes a genuine operational requirement that would prevent the Appellant's conversion to the higher classification position at this time.
  1. [31]
    I accept the Respondent's submission that a significant structural change involving the disestablishment of the PSBA can reasonably be considered a genuine operational requirement in these circumstances.
  1. [32]
    I note that the Appellant submits that the role has continued to be annually funded by the agency's Capital Works Program for five financial years and is expected to continue for an additional five financial years. I accept the Appellant's submission that a history of ongoing funding could be considered indicative of future funding for the role. The difficulty in this matter, however, is that changes to that funding allocation following disestablishment of the PSBA will result in individual agencies making decisions regarding resourcing and classification levels. Based on the submissions by the Respondent, the structure to be adopted by each agency is currently unknown.
  1. [33]
    I further note the Appellant's view that her position will be ongoing after the PSBA ceases at the end of this financial year, as the role will still be required to be performed at either the QPS or QFES. Unlike considerations of temporary fixed term employment conversions, the criteria for conversion to a higher classification does not require an assessment of whether there is a continuing need for that role or one substantially the same. Conversion under the relevant Directive applies to the particular higher classification position in which the Appellant is currently employed only. As indicated above, I am satisfied that the Respondent's regard to the genuine operational requirement of the re-structured agency was reasonable when it declined to convert the Appellant to the position in which she is currently employed.
  1. [34]
    In consideration of the material before me and the submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that the decision made by the Respondent was fair and reasonable.

Order

  1. [35]
    I make the following order:

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

[5] citing Lee v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) [2021] QIRC 13 [56].

[6] Ibid.

[7] PS Act ss 194(1)(e)(iii) and 196(e).

[8] PS Act s 149C(6).

[9] As per subsections (4), (4A) and (5) of the PS Act.

[10] [2020] QIRC 203.

[11] Morison at [40].

[12] The date of announcement being 7 September 2020.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    McNab v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    McNab v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency)

  • MNC:

    [2021] QIRC 77

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Power IC

  • Date:

    11 Mar 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
Lee v State of Queensland (Public Safety Business Agency) [2021] QIRC 13
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 13
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 13
Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 203

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

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

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.