Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Hillman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2022] QIRC 182

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

Hillman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 182

Hillman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 182

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Hillman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 182

PARTIES:

Hillman, Victoria Ilivia Pamela

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/365

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – fair treatment appeal

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2022

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – external review – where the appellant applied for an exemption from Health Employment Directive No 12/21 Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements – where appellant was denied an exemption from complying with Directive – where appellant submits that decision is unfair and unreasonable

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 ss 562, 562B and 562C

Public Service Act 2008 ss 137, 187 and 194

Directive 11/20 - Individual Employee Grievances

Health Employment Directive No 12/21 Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements

CASES:

Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 016

Graffunder v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 076

Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 039

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Victoria Ilivia Pamela Hillman (the Appellant) is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health), (the Respondent). Ms Hillman is employed as an Administration Officer at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital (SCUH) within Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (SCHHS).
  1. [2]
    Ms Hillman has been an employee of the Respondent since 20 April 2015.
  1. [3]
    Health Employment Directive No 12/21 Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements (Directive 12/21) issued on 11 September 2021, required all unvaccinated staff to receive the required doses of the COVID-19 Vaccination.  The Directive provided for employees to make application for an exemption from the requirement for vaccination.
  1. [4]
    On 30 September 2021, Ms Hillman applied for an exemption from the requirement for vaccination. On 6 January 2022, Ms Hillman was advised that her application for an exemption was denied.  On 28 January 2022, Ms Hillman requested an internal review of that decision.
  1. [5]
    On 22 February 2022, Ms Hillman received an internal review decision dated 16 February 2022 confirming a decision not to approve her application for an exemption from compliance with Directive 12/21 which requires relevant employees to receive the required doses of the COVID-19 Vaccination.
  1. [6]
    Ms Hillman seeks an external review of that decision by way of a Public Service Appeal.

Is the Appellant entitled to appeal?

  1. [7]
    Section 194 of the Public Service Act 2008 (The PS Act) lists various categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made.  Section 194(1)(eb) provides that an appeal may be made against "a decision a public service employee believes is unfair and unreasonable (a fair treatment decision)".
  1. [8]
    The appeal notice was filed with the Industrial Registry on 7 March 2022 within 21 days of the decision being received on 22 February 2022. I am satisfied that the Appellant may appeal the decision.

Appeal Principles

  1. [9]
    Section 562B(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act) provides that "the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".
  1. [10]
    Findings made in the decision which are reasonably open on the relevant material or evidence before the decision maker, should not be expected to be disturbed on appeal.
  1. [11]
    A public service appeal is not an opportunity for a fresh hearing, but a review of the decision arrived at by the decision maker. To determine the appeal, I will consider whether the internal review decision dated 16 February 2022 was fair and reasonable.
  1. [12]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the IR Act provides that the Commission may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; 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.

Directive 12/21

  1. [13]
    Directive 12/21 sets out the mandatory vaccination requirements for all current and prospective health service employees employed under the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 ('HHB Act').
  1. [14]
    Clause 1 of Directive 12/21 provides that compliance with the Directive is mandatory. Clause 2 provides that the purpose of Directive 12/21 is to outline COVID-19 vaccination requirements for existing and prospective employees employed in the identified high-risk groups designated in Directive 12/21.
  1. [15]
    Clause 6 of Directive 12/21 identifies the potential risk posed to relevant employees, and the risk profile of those employees as follows:

The COVID-19 virus has been shown to disproportionately affect healthcare workers and health support staff and poses a significant risk to Queensland Health patients, and the broader community.

In recognition of the risks posed by the virus, as well as workplace health and safety obligations incumbent upon both the organisation and employees, this Directive requires health service employees who are identified as being in high risk groups to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Prospective and existing health service employees subject to these requirements have been identified based on the following risk profile:

  • They are working in an area with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients or an area that a COVID-19 patient may enter.
  • They are coming into direct or indirect contact with people who work in an area with COVID-19 patients or an area that a suspected or actual COVID-19 patient may enter.
  • They are unable to observe public health requirements (e.g. physical distancing, working in areas of high population density, rapid donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in emergent situations).
  • They have the potential to expose patients, clients, other staff or the broader community to the virus (e.g. occupying shared spaces such as lifts, cafeterias, car parks, with people working with suspected or actual COVID-19 patients).
  1. [16]
    Clause 7 of Directive 12/21 sets out the requirements for vaccination. Relevantly, cl 7.1 states:

In acknowledgment of the risks posed by the COVID-19 virus to the health and safety of Queensland Health employees, patients and the broader community, clauses 8 and 9 of this Directive require all existing and prospective employees who are or are to be employed to work in the cohorts as categorised in accordance with Table 1 (below), to be vaccinated as a condition of employment, subject to certain limited exemptions described in clause 10 of this Directive.

  1. [17]
    Clause 8 of Directive 12/21 sets out the mandatory vaccine requirements for existing employees as follows:
  1. 8.1Existing employees currently undertaking work or moving into a role undertaking work listed in a cohort of Table 1, must:
  1. a.have received at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 30 September 2021; and
  1. b.have received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 31 October 2021.
  • An existing employee must provide to their line manager or upload into the designated system:
  1. a.evidence of vaccination confirming that the employee has received at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by no later than 7 days after receiving the vaccine.
  1. b.evidence of vaccination confirming that the employee has received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by no later than 7 days after receiving the vaccine.
  • An existing employee must maintain vaccine protection. Therefore, an existing employee is required to receive the prescribed subsequent dose/s of a COVID-19 vaccination (i.e. booster), as may be approved by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), within any recommended timeframe following the second dose. Evidence of vaccination, confirming the employee has received prescribed subsequent dose/s of the vaccine, is to be provided to their line manager or other designated person within 7 days of receiving the vaccine.
  • An existing employee who is required to have received a first or second dose of a COVID-19 dose at an earlier date under a Chief Health Officer public health direction must be vaccinated by the dates specified in the public health direction.
  • The requirements of this clause 8 do not apply to existing employees who have been granted an exemption under clause 10 of this Directive.
  1. [18]
    Clause 10 of Directive 12/21 provides that where an employee is unable to be vaccinated, and exemption may be granted as follows:
  1. 10.1Where an employee is unable to be vaccinated they are required to complete an exemption application form.
  1. 10.2Exemptions will be considered in the following circumstances:
  • Where an existing employee has a recognised medical contraindication;
  • Where an existing employee has a genuinely held religious belief;
  • Where another exceptional circumstance exists.
  1. 10.3If an existing employee is granted an exemption, they do not have to comply with clause 8 or 9 of this Directive for the duration of that exemption.

The Internal Review decision

  1. [19]
    Mr Andrew Leggate, A/Chief Information and Infrastructure Officer, SCHHS was the delegate who undertook the internal review.
  1. [20]
    Mr Leggate's letter of 16 February 2022 sets out the actions he took to review the decision made by the delegate:

I have carefully and fully considered the following documentation and information:

  • your exemption application form;
  • supporting documentation you provided, including letters from Kennedy Spanner Lawyers;
  • the mandatory vaccination exemption outcome decision by the delegate, dated 6 January 2022;
  • Public Service Commission (PSC) Directive 11/20 – Individual Employee Grievances (PSC Directive 11/20) [Attachment 1];
  • Individual Employee Grievances Human Resources (HR) Policy E12 [Attachment 2];
  • HR Sub-Delegation – Exemption to COVID19 requirements [Attachment 4].

The grounds for your application are outlined in letters from Kennedy Spanner Lawyers which were attached to your application.  As the letters appear to relate to the class of persons detailed at Schedule 1 of Kennedy Spanner Solicitors' letter dated 27 September 2021 and does not otherwise identify or reference you by name; for the purposes of your application I have taken the reference to 'our client' as being a reference to you.

  1. [21]
    Mr Leggate noted that in Ms Hillman's request for a review, she stated 'I repeat and rely on my original application and supporting material', and that Ms Hillman did not provide further supporting documentation. 
  1. [22]
    Mr Leggate also acknowledged the concerns Ms Hillman had raised with regard to an exemption based on a medical contraindication.
  1. [23]
    Mr Leggate then went on to address Ms Hillman's concerns about receiving the vaccine due to a medical condition and to provide his decision:

Concerns regarding your ability to receive two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine due to a medical condition

It was a requirement for an employee seeking an exemption on medical grounds to provide evidence from their treating practitioner certifying an inability to receive any COVID-19 vaccination as a result of a recognised medical contraindication.

Insufficient medical information has been provided indicating you have a recognised medical contraindication precluding vaccination with all the available COVID-19 vaccines in Australia constituting an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of providing you with an exemption.

I am therefore satisfied that you are able to comply with the mandate.

My decision

In considering the requirements under PSC Directive 11/20 and the actions taken as outlined above, I am of the view that the delegate has undertaken appropriate steps and consideration in relation to your mandatory vaccination exemption request.

Accordingly, you are not exempt from the requirements of HED 12/21.

Human Rights considerations

I acknowledge that my decision engages or limits a number of your human rights, including your right to equality and non-discrimination and your right not to receive medical treatment without consent.  I am satisfied that those limits on human rights are justified by the need to ensure the readiness of the health system in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to protect the lives of employees, patients and the community they serve.

The Appeal

  1. [24]
    The appeal notice filed on 7 March 2022 gives a chronology of events and correspondence between legal representatives and Queensland Health which Ms Hillman claims demonstrate a lack of consultation. Ms Hillman submits she has asked for a risk assessment multiple times in since Directive 12/21 was announced and has yet to be provided one.
  1. [25]
    Ms Hillman says that she has a 'document of peer-reviewed medical papers submitted to various medical journals, evidencing over 1000 Adverse Events in Covid-19 vaccine recipients'. Ms Hillman says that 'these published studies would cause any reasonable thinking person to have serious concerns about the safety of the provisionally approved vaccines which have been mandated by QH'.
  1. [26]
    Relevant to this appeal, Ms Hillman says:

…The decline of my vaccine exemption is being appealed due to the risks it imposes to my health if I were to have the vaccine as outlined in Part B above & as per the document of peer reviewed medical papers.  I can provide this to you as and when you may request it. I have a medical condition that could be made worse by having this vaccine.

I shall not risk my health or risk death in order to have a vaccine that is still in an experimental stage and I appeal to you to overturn the decision made by QH in declining my vaccine exemption…

Ms Hillman's vaccine exemption request

  1. [27]
    Ms Hillman's exemption application form has been provided to me.[1]
  1. [28]
    At section 2(a) of the form, Ms Hillman has ticked the box to confirm that she is 'unable to meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements due to a recognised medical contraindication to the vaccine'.  The box below is entitled 'Evidence requirements' and states that

An employee is required to provide a medical certificate from their treating specialist medical practitioner certifying:

  • that the employee is unable to receive any COVID-19 vaccination because they have a recognised medical contraindication to the vaccine.
  • whether the medical contraindication will permanently or temporarily prevent COVID-19 vaccination.
  • if the medical contraindication is temporary in nature, when the employee may be able to receive the COVID-19 vaccination.
  1. [29]
    Ms Hillman did not tick the accompanying box to indicate that she had attached a copy of the documentation as required.
  1. [30]
    At section 2(b) of the form, Ms Hillman has detailed 'Other exceptional circumstances' which she says preclude her from meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirements.
  1. I am unable to have a vaccine to a medical condition which is medical in confidence.  My doctor has been told that they can only provide a medical exemption for anaphylactic conditions.
  2. The exceptional circumstances are:

The serious matters raised in a letter from Kennedy Spanner Lawyers to Queensland Health dated 27 September 2021, together with the 70 "statements" attached at schedule 2 to that letter;

There has been no response to that letter;

I have not been given a risk assessment.

Ms Hillman's submissions

  1. [31]
    Ms Hillman's submissions in support of her appeal were filed on 17 March 2022.  Ms Hillman attaches to those submissions:
  • a document of peer-reviewed medical papers submitted to various medical journals, evidencing over 1000 Adverse Events in Covid-19 vaccine recipients;
  • a 38-page report from Pfizer listing 1291 reported adverse events from its COVID-19 vaccine.  It should be noted that on 6 January 2022, a Federal Court judge of Texas ruled under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedite the release of these Pfizer documents which the company requested not to disclose until the year 2096. This data was relied upon to licence Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine regardless of the adverse events information disclosed;
  • an open letter from the Covid Medical Network to the Australian Therapeutics Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), TGA's Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV), and the Minister and Dept of Health as follow up on prior correspondence to ATAGI, TGA and the Health Minister, and FOIA requests to the TGA, where answers have either been not forthcoming or have indicated the TGA has lacked critical information for making its provisional approval of the gene-based vaccines, namely Pfizer's BNT162b2 & Comirnatry, AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1-S and Moderna's Spikevax/mrNA-1273.
  1. [32]
    Ms Hillman says, 'my medical condition could be made worse by having this vaccine.'  However I note that Ms Hillman has provided no evidence or information from a doctor to indicate what her medical condition is or how it could be made worse by having the vaccine.
  1. [33]
    Ms Hillman says that she has not been provided with 'any adequate risk assessment'. 
  1. [34]
    Ms Hillman says that the believes she has 'exceptional circumstances' and that the exemption should have been made on the basis of those circumstances she set out in her exemption application (see above at [30]).
  1. [35]
    Ms Hillman says that 'not being allowed entry to my work premises and not being allowed to work from 1 November 2021' is seen by her as workplace discrimination under s 278 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 and that the Queensland Health directive 'goes against the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986'.
  1. [36]
    Ms Hillman goes on to discuss factors a court will consider in determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations and says that the nature of her work is that she has 'practically' nil interation with patients. 
  1. [37]
    Ms Hillman says that Queensland Health has not offered her alternative methods which would allow her to work without needing vaccination.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [38]
    The Respondent submits that Directive 12/21 is based on the Chief Health Officer's directions regarding workers in healthcare settings and hospital entries.  Noting the Chief Health Officer is the most senior medical officer in the State, Directive 12/21 is both lawful (being issued under s 51A of the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011) and reasonable.[2]
  1. [39]
    With regard to Ms Hillman's submissions regarding consultation, the Respondent says it complied with its obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to consult with employees and with the registered unions representing employees.  The consultation included dedicated meetings with registered unions representing employees employed within the Department. The Respondent says that the obligation to consult does not impose an obligation to consult with employees on an individual basis, particularly for a workforce the size of the Department and SCHHS.
  1. [40]
    The Respondent also says that the Department conducted appropriate risk assessments prior to the implementation of Directive 12/21.[3]  Further, Queensland Health says that there was no lawful basis upon which Ms Hillman could request access to a risk assessment undertaken by the Department or SCHHS in relation to vaccines, and proof that she is a heightened risk of transmission.[4]
  1. [41]
    With regard to Ms Hillman's exemption application, the Respondent says that Ms Hillman stated she had a medical condition but that she did not provide evidence that she had a recognised medical contraindication, nor did she provide any supporting evidence from a medical practitioner.
  1. [42]
    The Respondent says that Ms Hillman provided two letters dated 27 September and 29 September 2021 from Kennedy Spanner Lawyers supporting her exemption application.  By letter dated 30 September 2021, Dr John Wakefield PSM (Director-General) responded to the Kennedy Spanner Lawyer's concerns.
  1. [43]
    On 6 January 2022, Mr Warren Campbell, Acting Director Human Resources Operations, SCHHS advised Ms Hillman that her application for an exemption had been refused.  The Respondent says that the letter provided a response to the concerns raised by Ms Hillman regarding her ability to receive the required doses of a COVID-19 vaccination due to a medical condition, risk and consultation, safety and efficacy of the vaccines, and consent.  That letter also directed Ms Hillman to comply with Directive 12/21.
  1. [44]
    The Respondent says that Mr Leggate properly considered Ms Hillman's exemption request, including submissions made by Kennedy Spanner Lawyers and weighed these against the objects and requirements of Directive 12/21, noting the high level of risk to the health and wellbeing of patients, colleagues and other key stakeholders who access services from SCUH and SCHHS.  It was on that basis the Mr Leggate confirmed the decision to refuse the exemption request.
  1. [45]
    The fact that Ms Hillman may have a different view from the Department does not render her circumstances 'exceptional',[5] nor does the fact that she may not have been satisfied with the responses provided.[6]
  1. [46]
    The Respondent says that Ms Hillman's human rights were taken into account and that Mr Leggate determined any limitation on her rights was 'justified by the need to ensure the readiness of the health system in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to protect the lives of employees, patients, and the community they serve'.
  1. [47]
    The Respondent says that the Department's exemption application makes it clear that vaccine hesitancy and conscientious objection are not, on their own, exceptional circumstances.  Queensland Health says that exemptions must relate to grounds in respect to the employee as an individual, as opposed to general circumstances that may concern a large group of people.[7]  Ms Hillman did not provide any evidence of her individual circumstances which were exceptional such that they would serve to exempt her from Directive 12/21.
  1. [48]
    The matters raised by Kennedy Spanner Lawyers on behalf of Ms Hillman and the matters raised by Ms Hillman herself referring to the COVID-19 vaccine as 'experimental' can be characterised as vaccine hesitancy.   Vaccine hesitancy is not an exceptional circumstance and does not result in requiring compliance with Directive 12/21 being unreasonable.
  1. [49]
    The Respondent says that Ms Hillman's concerns regarding informed consent were taken into account and that Directive 12/21 requires vaccination as a condition of employment.  This situation does not involve coercive medical treatment or circumstances giving rise to an inability to provide free and informed consent to medical treatment.   Ms Hillman is not obliged to work for the Department.
  1. [50]
    The Respondent says that the nature of Ms Hillman's role presents a high degree of risk to herself, other SCHHS employees, and patients with respect to COVID-19 transmission.  Queensland Health says that in particular:
  1. Ms Hillman's workplace is SCUH. Hospitals and health service facilities are high risk locations with respect to COVID-19 transmission;
  2. As part of her role, Ms Hillman is required to physically attend the SCUH to undertaken her duties as an Administration Officer.  There were no alternative duties for Ms Hillman to perform at home or at another location;
  3. Further, where Ms Hillman did not have an exemption from HED [Directive] 12/21 and the requirement to comply with the direction contained in HED 12/21, SCHHS was not obliged to find her alternative duties; and
  4. Ms Hillman's duties require her to interact closely with clinical and non-clinical employees throughout the course of each day.  This increases the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between patients and Ms Hillman.
  1. [51]
    The Respondent says that in the absence of a recognised medical contraindication reported to the Australian Immunisation Register, it was not incumbent upon the Department to accept that Ms Hillman's circumstances outweighed factors such as the public health risk of COVID-19.

Consideration

  1. [52]
    At the outset, I note that Ms Hillman has asked me to consider extensive documentation that she says 'would cause any reasonable thinking person to have serious concerns about the safety of the provisionally approved vaccines which have been mandated by QH'.  To be clear, I am approaching this appeal from the position that Direction 12/21 is lawful.
  1. [53]
    This appeal does not involve me making a fresh decision with regard to the vaccine exemption request. Rather, what I am asked to do in this appeal is decide whether the decision of Mr Leggate upholding the decision of Mr Campbell to refuse Ms Hillman's vaccine exemption request was fair and reasonable. 
  1. [54]
    Ms Hillman applied for a vaccine exemption on two grounds.  The first was on the basis of a recognised medical contraindication.  At the time of her application for an exemption, Ms Hillman did not provide any medical evidence regarding a recognised medical contraindication.  When she asked for a internal review of Mr Campbell's decision, Ms Hillman did not provide Mr Leggate with any new information to support her application for an exemption on the grounds of a recognised medical contraindication. 
  1. [55]
    While Ms Hillman's appeal notice makes reference to a 'medical condition that could be made worse by having this vaccine' and says that she will not risk her health or risk death in order to have the vaccine, it does not include any evidence of a recognised medical contraindication. 
  1. [56]
    At [23] above, I have set out the relevant part of Mr Leggate's decision.  On the basis of the material before me, and noting that Ms Hillman has never produced evidence of a recognised medical contraindication, it was fair and reasonable for Mr Leggate to determine that Ms Hillman was able to comply with the mandate and was not exempt from the requirements of Directive 12/21 on the basis of a recognised medical contraindication.
  1. [57]
    With regard to Ms Hillman's application for exemption the basis of 'other exceptional circumstances', I note that her application form made reference to matters raised in a letter from Kennedy Spanner Lawyers and what she says is her unanswered request for a risk assessment.
  1. [58]
    I note that in the original decision of Mr Campbell, it was determined that the matters raised by Kennedy Spanner Lawyers had been considered but that: relevant consultation had occurred; the COVID vaccination Directive was implemented in recognition of the risks posed by the virus and Queensland Health had taken a position that to the extent that the decision impacted on human rights, it was reasonably justified.  Mr Campbell considered that the concerns raised by Ms Hillman and Kennedy Spanner Lawyers did not constitute exceptional circumstances.
  1. [59]
    In the original decision, Mr Campbell also considered the concerns raised by Ms Hillman and Kennedy Spanner Lawyers regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.  Mr Campbell determined that these concerns could be described as 'vaccine hesitancy' and determined that concerns regarding the safety of the vaccines did not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
  1. [60]
    With regard to the matters raised by Kennedy Spanner Lawyers regarding Ms Hillman's ability to provide free and informed consent to the COVID-19 vaccine, Mr Campbell did not accept that Directive 12/21 deprives Ms Hillman of free and informed consent to the COVID-19 vaccine and found that this matter did not constitute an exceptional circumstance.
  1. [61]
    Having found that Ms Hillman had not demonstrated 'other exceptional circumstances' that would serve to exempt her from Direction 12/21, Mr Campbell directed Ms Hillman to comply with the Directive.
  1. [62]
    Mr Leggate's role in the review was to consider all information available to him and determine if Mr Campbell's decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  1. [63]
    Ms Hillman did not provide Mr Leggate with any further information to support her review request and indicated that she was repeating and relying on the material she had provided with her vaccine exemption application.
  1. [64]
    I am satisfied that Mr Leggate considered all of the material available to him.  On page one of the internal review decision letter, Mr Leggate sets out the documentation and information he considered.
  1. [65]
    Mr Leggate considered the material provided by Kennedy Spanner Lawyers.  I have also considered that material.  There is nothing in that material pertaining to exceptional circumstances specific to Ms Hillman that would serve to exempt her from Direction 12/21.
  1. [66]
    I understand that Ms Hillman is not satisfied with the responses that have been provided to her both by Mr Campbell and Mr Leggate and via Kennedy Spanner Lawyers and that she maintains concerns about the vaccine.  However, dissatisfaction with the outcome of the exemption request and the comprehensive response provided does not demonstrate an exceptional circumstance serving to exempt Ms Hillman from Direction 12/21.
  1. [67]
    Mr Leggate's decision confirming that Ms Hillman is not exempt from the requirements of Directive 12/21 was open to him on the basis of the material before him and the purpose of Directive 12/21.  The decision was fair and reasonable.
  1. [68]
    Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Respondent submissions filed 22 March 2022, attachment 1.

[2] Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 039, [41] ('Slykerman').

[3]  Respondent submissions 22 March 2022, [21].

[4] Slykerman (n 2), [35].

[5] Graffunder v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 076, [62] ('Graffunder').

[6]  Ibid, [70].

[7] Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 016, [54].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Hillman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Hillman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 182

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    24 May 2022

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
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 16
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 16
Graffunder v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 76
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 76
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 76
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 76
Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 39
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 39
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 39
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 39

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.