Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2022] QIRC 213

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

Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 213

Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 213

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 213

PARTIES: 

Stephens, Emily

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/195

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – appeal against a conversion decision

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2022

MEMBER:

Dwyer IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

  1. 1.The decision is set aside;
  2. 2.The matter is returned to the decision maker to conduct a fresh review of Ms Stephens employment in accordance with the terms of Sections 149A and 149B of the Public Service Act 2008, and in accordance with the Fixed Term Temporary Employment Directive 09/20; and
  3. 3.The fresh review must be conducted by an appropriately authorised decision maker within 28 days of the date of this decision.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – appeal against a conversion decision – where Ms Stephens had been working on fixed term temporary engagements – where Ms Stephens was not granted conversion to permanent employment – where conversion was not granted on the grounds of genuine occupational requirements – whether there was a continuing need for Ms Stephens to be employed – genuine operational requirements – insufficient reasons for decision – decision not fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

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

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss, 25, 148, 149A, 149B

Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 27B

CASES:

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

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

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

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

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

Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 55

Swan v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 346

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Ms Emily Stephens is currently employed by Queensland Health at Metro South Hospital and Health Service ('MSHHS') as a fixed term temporary employee. Ms Stephens performs the role of Radiation Therapist (HP3) with Radiation Oncology at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.
  1. [2]
    Ms Stephens is currently engaged on a full-time, 76 hours per fortnight temporary contract which is scheduled to conclude on 29 January 2023. Since 8 January 2018, Ms Stephens has had numerous successive fixed term temporary employment contracts.
  1. [3]
    On 10 January 2022, Ms Stephens was informed that a fixed term temporary employment review had commenced in accordance with the Fixed Term Temporary Employment Directive 9/20 ('the Directive').
  1. [4]
    On 18 January 2022, Ms Stephens was advised by MSHHS that she was not being converted to permanent employment ('the decision') on the grounds of genuine operational requirements, including that she was engaged as a fixed term temporary employee to:
  • backfill tenured employees on parental leave and secondment; and
  • backfill tenured employees returning to work part-time from a period of parental leave.[1]
  1. [5]
    Ms Stephens now appeals the decision. An appeal notice was filed on 3 February 2022. Ms Stephens seeks an appeal on the basis that she:
  • disputes the genuine operational requirements relied upon by the MSHHS;
  • believes the MSHHS failed to consider whether there is a continuing need for her to be employed in a role that is substantively the same;
  • believes her employment history demonstrates an ongoing requirement for her to continue performing her duties with the MSHHS;
  • does not accept that the conversion is not viable or appropriate; and
  • does not believe the MSHHS has given consideration to their industrial obligations when reaching their decision not to convert her to permanent employment.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [6]
    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
  2. (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 under a Directive of the commission chief executive under the Public Service Act 2008 that the commission considers appropriate; or
  3. (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. [7]
    Under Chapter 11 of the IR Act, the role of the Commission is to review the decision appealed against.[2] The IR Act does not define the term 'review'. The term 'review' will take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[3]
  1. [8]
    An appeal under Chapter 11 of the IR Act is not a rehearing of the matter,[4] but rather, it is a review of the decision and the decision-making process.[5] The purpose of such an appeal is to have the Commission decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[6]
  1. [9]
    The issue for my determination in the matter before me is whether the decision to refuse to convert Ms Stephens from fixed term temporary employment to permanent employment was fair and reasonable.[7]

Relevant legislation

  1. [10]
    Section 148 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ('PS Act') considers fixed term temporary employment:

148 Employment of fixed term temporary employees

  1. (1)
    A chief executive may employ a person (a fixed term temporary employee) for a fixed term to perform work of a type ordinarily performed by a public service officer, other than a chief executive or senior executive officer, if employment of a person on tenure is not viable or appropriate, having regard to human resource planning carried out by the chief executive under section 98(1)(d).
  2. (2)
    Without limiting subsection (1), employment of a person on tenure may not be viable or appropriate if the employment is for any of the following purposes—
  1. (a)
    to fill a temporary vacancy arising because a person is absent for a known period;

Examples of absences for a known period—

approved leave (including parental leave), a secondment

…

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

Example—

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

…

  1. [11]
    Section 149A relevantly provides:

149A Decision on review of status

...

  1. (2)
    The department's chief executive may offer to convert the person's employment under section 149(3)(b) only if –
  1. (a)
    the department's chief executive considers–
  1. (i)
    there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in the person's role, or a role that is substantially the same as the person's role; and
  2. (ii)
    the person is eligible for appointment having regard to the merit principle; and
  1. (b)
    any requirements of an industrial instrument are complied with in relation to the decision.

…

  1. (4)
    If the matters in subsection (2) are satisfied, the department's chief executive must decide to offer to convert the person's employment basis to employment as a general employee on tenure or a public service officer, unless it is not viable or appropriate to do so having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the department.

(Emphasis added)

  1. [12]
    Section 149B of the PS Act provides for the review of an employee's employment status after two years continuous employment and is in the following terms:

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.
  2. (2)
    However, this section does not apply to a non-industrial instrument employee.
  3. (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
  2. (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)
    end of 2 years after the employee has been continuously employed as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee in the department; and
  2. (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. (5)
    In making the decision—
  1. (a)
    section 149A(2) and (3) applies to the department's chief executive; and
  2. (b)
    the department's chief executive must have regard to the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 149A in relation to the person during the person's period of continuous employment.
  1. (6)
    If the department's chief executive decides not to offer to convert the person's employment under subsection (3), the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating—
  1. (a)
    the reasons for the decision; and
  2. (b)
    the total period for which the person has been continuously employed in the department; and
  3. (c)
    for a fixed term temporary employee—how many times the person's employment as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee has been extended; and
  4. (d)
    each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section or section 149A in relation to the person during the person's period of continuous employment.
  1. (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. [13]
    The Directive commenced operation on 25 September 2020 and establishes employment on tenure as the default basis of employment in the Queensland public service.
  1. [14]
    Clause 8 of the Directive provides for the decision on a review of status and is in the following terms:

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

  • whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same
  • the merit of the fixed term temporary employee for the role having regard to the merit principle in section 27 of the PS Act
  • whether any requirements of an industrial instrument need to be complied with in relation to making the decision, and
  • the reasons for each decision previously made, or deemed to have been made, under sections 149A or 149B in relation to the employee during their period of continuous employment.

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

8.3  If the outcome is a decision to offer to convert the fixed term temporary employee to permanent employment:

  1. (a)
    the written notification must include the terms and conditions of the offer to convert to permanent employment (e.g. full-time or part-time, days and hours of work, pay, location of the employment and any other changes to entitlements).
  2. (b)
    where the employee is part-time, an explanation of the days and hours of work offered in the decision; and
  3. (c)
    the chief executive cannot convert the fixed term temporary employee unless they accept the terms and conditions of the offer to convert.

8.4  Notice of a decision not to convert a person's employment must comply with section 149A(4) for applications under section 149 or 149B(6) for reviews under section 149B. In accordance with section 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, the decision must:

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

8.5  Sections 149A(5) and 149B(7) of the PS Act provide for a deemed decision not to convert where a decision is not made within the required timeframe (28 days).

8.6  Agencies are expected to undertake each review as required by the PS Act and this Directive and must not make an intentional decision to rely on a deemed decision referred to in clause 8.5.

8.7  Each agency must, upon request, give the Commission Chief Executive a report about the number of known deemed decisions.

(Emphasis added)

Submissions of the parties

  1. [15]
    The parties filed written submissions in accordance with a Directions Order dated 8 February 2022. The parties' submissions primarily concern genuine operational requirements and the continuing need for Ms Stephens to work in the role.

Submissions of MSHHS

  1. [16]
    MSHHS submits at the time the appeal was filed, there were genuine operational reasons for not converting Ms Stephens's employment.
  1. [17]
    Ms Stephens has been engaged on a fixed term basis since February 2019 as a radiation therapist to backfill permanent employees who are on leave. The employees on leave retain the entitlement to return to their substantive positions, at which time Ms Stephens' backfilling is no longer required.
  1. [18]
    MSHHS submits that it undertook the review of Ms Stephens' employment status in accordance with the Directive.
  1. [19]
    In relation to continuing need, MSHHS submits that Ms Stephens was advised that the substantive holder of the role she is backfilling is expected to return to work from a period of leave on or around 29 January 2023. Whether Ms Stephens will be offered a further contract after this date is contingent on whether another employee will access leave.
  1. [20]
    MSHHS submits it considered the following before making a decision with respect to Ms Stephens' employment status:
  • Ms Stephens' merit was acknowledged;
  • consideration was given to whether there was a continuing need to place Ms Stephens in a role, however as the substantive position holder is returning to their role there is no continuing need;
  • whilst there is an ongoing need for the duties of Ms Stephens to be performed, there is not an ongoing need for Ms Stephens to perform them because a permanent employee is already employed to perform the duties on an ongoing basis; and
  • Ms Stephens's previous engagements are not indicative of the need for Ms Stephens to continue performing the role when the substantive occupant returns to the position.
  1. [21]
    MSHHS, with reference to section 148 of the PS Act, submits Ms Stephens occupied a position where there was a vacancy because a person was absent for a known period of time.
  1. [22]
    MSHHS submits if it was to permanently appoint Ms Stephens to the HP3 position, this would result in having more HP3 Radiation Therapists than what is both required and budgeted for.
  1. [23]
    Relevantly, MSHHS also submitted that other opportunities within other work areas at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and other facilities under their control in a same or similar role were also explored, however there was no ongoing permanent roles available and suitable for Ms Stephen's skills, qualifications and experience.

Submissions of Ms Stephens

  1. [24]
    Ms Stephens submits she was entitled to have her employment reviewed pursuant to s 149B of the PS Act because she had been continuously employed in the same MSHHS for two years or more, and that she meets the merit principle as specified in clause 8 of the Directive. Ms Stephens also contends she is entitled to be converted to permanent employment pursuant to s 149A of the PS Act.
  1. [25]
    Ms Stephens submits the Decision was unfair because:
  • there is a continuing need for someone to be employed in Ms Stephens' role, and for Radiation Therapists in the Princess Alexandra Hospital;
  • Ms Stephens' contract has been extended on multiple occasions;
  • conversion of a fixed term or temporary employee is not dependent on the existence of a substantive vacancy;
  • conversion of Ms Stephens' employment is viable and appropriate due to the multiple ongoing temporary engagements available at the Princess Alexandra Hospital;
  • MSHHS's submissions in relation to substantive or budgeted vacancy are not a requirement under the Directive; and
  • a lack of available permanent vacancy is not a genuine operational requirement which can prevent conversion to permanent employment.
  1. [26]
    Ms Stephens submits that the decision was unreasonable because:
  • the PS Act does not require the decision maker to consider if there is a vacant position to facilitate conversion to permanent employment;
  • in the decision letter dated 11 February 2022, the decision maker did not include accurate reasons for the Decision, did not state the total period for which Ms Stephens has been continuously employed, or state how many times Ms Stephens's employment as fixed term temporary employee has been extended; and
  • the decision maker erred by failing to consider all relevant factors, specifically the requirement for agencies to manage their workforce planning to reduce reliance on casual and temporary employees and the existence of an extensive review process designed to facilitate conversion of casual and temporary employees to permanent positions.
  1. [27]
    Ms Stephens submits that pursuant to s 149A(2)(a)(i) of the PS Act, MSHHS was required to consider whether there is a continuing need to employ Ms Stephens as a 76 hours per fortnight HP3 Radiation Therapist where Ms Stephens believes that there are approximately 80 full time equivalents working in the Princess Alexandra Hospital.
  1. [28]
    With respect to the genuine operational requirements, Ms Stephens notes 'genuine' has been construed to mean authentic.[8] Ms Stephens submits there are no authentic reasons which exist to prevent MSHHS from converting her employment.
  1. [29]
    Ms Stephens submits that the genuine operational requirements cited by MSHHS are subverting its obligations to promote employment on tenure as the default basis of employment for public service employees.[9]
  1. [30]
    Ms Stephens contends the MSHHS has not provided any detail of the steps that were taken to determine whether there is a need for Ms Stephens to be employed in a role which is substantially the same. Ms Stephens submits this was not considered by the decision maker.
  1. [31]
    Ms Stephens submits the decision maker did not provide material findings of fact and evidence relied upon to make the Decision, which is required by clause 8.4 of the Directive and s 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).
  1. [32]
    Ms Stephens submits the review is conducted against both the present role and roles which are substantially the same.

Reply Submissions of MSHHS

  1. [33]
    In its reply submissions, MSHHS confirms that each of Ms Stephens' engagements have been to backfill a different temporary need, including permanent employees accessing leave. MSHHS submits that this is evidence that the fixed term engagements are temporary and do not demonstrate an ongoing need for Ms Stephens to perform the duties.
  1. [34]
    MSHHS contends that the full-time equivalent work unit is not a relevant consideration when considering the continuing need for Ms Stephens to be employed by the health service. Although there was an ongoing need for Ms Stephens to perform the duties she was engaged to perform, there was not an ongoing need for Ms Stephens to perform them as permanent employees were already employed to perform the duties on an ongoing basis.
  1. [35]
    MSHHS reiterated that at the time of the decision a search was undertaken and no similar roles of a permanent or ongoing nature were available within any facilities under the control of the MSHHS.

Consideration

  1. [36]
    At paragraph 5 of the submissions accompanying the Appeal Notice Ms Stephens asserts that:

It is well established that conversion of a fixed term temporary employee to permanent is not reliant on their (sic) being a substantive vacancy.

  1. [37]
    No authority is cited to support the submission that the proposition is 'well established'.[10]
  1. [38]
    At paragraph 17 of Ms Stephens' submissions filed on 1 April 2022 she says:

…The existence of a vacant position is neither a mandatory consideration nor a pre-requisite to conversion.

  1. [39]
    While that proposition is (in isolation) correct, it ignores the inextricable relationship between an available position and broader operational matters. In Morision Deputy President Merrell comprehensively explored the notion of 'genuine operational requirements' as the phrase appears in both the PS Act and the Directives.[11] Relevantly, he said:[12]

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

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

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

…

The phrase '... genuine operational requirements of the department' in s 149C(4A)(a) and in cl 6.2(a) of the Directive, construed in context, would at least include 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.'

(Emphasis added)

  1. [40]
    While I accept entirely that the availability of a permanent position is not of itself a prescribed pre-condition for conversion, it is an unavoidable consideration amongst a suite of factors when having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of MSHHS.
  1. [41]
    With respect to the position she currently holds, it would be nothing short of irresponsible to permanently appoint Ms Stephens to a role that she is filling temporarily while the substantive position holder is on leave or otherwise absent, or to create a position for her for which there is no funding. The prevailing circumstances, which include both budgetary considerations and the fact that there is a substantive position holder, combine to form the operational requirements precluding Ms Stephens' permanent appointment to the position.
  1. [42]
    In the circumstances I consider that, at least in respect of this aspect, the decision was fair and reasonable. I will now turn to consider whether the decision itself was fair and reasonable.
  1. [43]
    The PS Act and the Directive both require MSHHS to consider the availability of other roles that are substantially the same. Further, if no such roles are able to be identified, the decision must provide sufficient reasons (including relevant findings of fact).[13]
  1. [44]
    While the submissions of MSHHS are (slightly) more elaborate in respect of informing of the effort undertaken to identify a position that was substantially the same, it is the decision of Ms Staats that is under review.
  1. [45]
    The relevant portion of the decision simply reads:

Furthermore, there is no continuing need for you to perform a role that is substantially the same as the duties you were previously undertaking as all alternative roles have been considered.

  1. [46]
    That extract represents the entirety of what was communicated to Ms Stephens in respect of the consideration given to appointing her permanently to a role that was 'substantially the same'. It is clear that the extract contains no detail whatsoever of where the decision maker looked or what roles she considered (if any).
  1. [47]
    By contrast, by the time MSHHS filed its submissions in this appeal, it was able to (slightly) extend this explanation to:

…other opportunities within other work areas at Princess Alexandra Hospital and other facilities under their control in a same or similar role were also explored, however there was no ongoing permanent roles available and suitable for Ms Stephen's skills, qualifications and experience.

  1. [48]
    While both statements may have been correct, neither one provides any detail in the manner contemplated by Clause 8.4 of the Directive and s 27B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 which require the decision maker to:
  1. (a)
    set out the findings on material questions of fact; and
  2. (b)
    refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.
  1. [49]
    Compliance with Clause 8.4 is mandatory. In Katae v State of Queensland & Anor Crow J held that:[14]

A decision-maker who fails to take mandatory relevant considerations into account has not properly applied the law.

  1. [50]
    I cannot conclude that the decision maker failed to take mandatory relevant considerations into account in this case. But the difficulty (due to the complete paucity of information in the decision) is that I also cannot conclude that they have made proper enquiries.
  1. [51]
    Further, I conclude that the decision maker has failed to comply with a mandatory requirement to include findings and evidence on material findings of fact with respect to what efforts were undertaken to locate and consider roles that might be substantially the same, and why roles considered (if any) were excluded.
  1. [52]
    Fairness dictates that Ms Stephens should (at least) have been provided with this information in the decision. Fairness requires that she be given the opportunity to fully understand (through provision of reasons) the extent to which MSHHS complied with its obligations in considering her conversion.
  1. [53]
    For these reasons I consider that the decision was unfair and unreasonable.

Conclusion

  1. [54]
    I am satisfied that the decision maker identified a legitimate operational requirement precluding permanent appointment, at least in so far as the position being temporarily filled by Ms Stephens is concerned. However, the decision provides no information as to the extent, quality or genuineness of the efforts made to find a substantially similar role. That is not to say that proper efforts were not made, but simply that there is no information about those efforts that would allow Ms Stephens to evaluate whether she had been treated fairly.
  1. [55]
    In the circumstances it is not appropriate for me to make an order for conversion. In the circumstances this matter must return to the decision maker. Given the time that has elapsed since the review was conducted, I intend to order that the review be conducted afresh and that the decision maker give consideration to any substantially similar roles that are available at the time of the fresh review. If a permanent role cannot be found for Ms Stephens, I expect that any decision issued will set out the details of the efforts to identify substantially similar roles and (if applicable) why any identified were excluded.        

Orders

  1. [56]
    I make the following orders:
  1. 1.The decision is set aside;
  2. 2.The matter is returned to the decision maker to conduct a fresh review of Ms Stephens employment in accordance with the terms of Sections 149A and 149B of the Public Service Act 2008, and in accordance with the Fixed Term Temporary Employment Directive 09/20; and
  3. 3.The fresh review must be conducted by an appropriately authorised decision maker within 28 days of the date of this decision.

Footnotes

[1] Attachment B to notice of Appeal filed on 3 February 2022.

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

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

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

[5] Ibid.

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

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

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

[9] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 25(2)(d).

[10] I note the comments of Pidgeon IC in Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 55 and my own observations about those comments in Swan v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 346 at [25].

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

[12] Ibid, [37]-[40].  

[13] Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ss 149A(2), 149B(6); Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, cl 8.1, 8.4. 

[14] [2018] QSC 225 at [22].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 213

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Dwyer IC

  • Date:

    15 Jun 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
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
Katae v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 225
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 225
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 225
Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 55
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 55
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 55
Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 4 - [2020] QIRC 203
Page v Thompson [2014] QSC 252
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QSC 252
Cite 2 - [2014] QSC 252
Swan v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 346
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 346
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 346

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Quinn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 242 citations
Stephens v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 4205 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.