Your JavaScript is currently disabled. For the best experience viewing this website please enable JavaScript as described here.

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen version of this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please return to the case for PDF printing options.

Word Highlighter:
0of0
Change Font and Font Size
Font:
Font Size:
CITE

Unreported Judgment

Morrissey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs)[2022] QIRC 303Merrell DP
Add to List

Morrissey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs)[2022] QIRC 303

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Morrissey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2022] QIRC 303
PARTIES:	Morrissey, Cinnamon (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	PSA/2022/421
PROCEEDING:	Public Service Appeal - Fair treatment decisions
DELIVERED ON:	28 June 2022
HEARING DATE:	28 June 2022
MEMBER:	Merrell DP
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:	Appellant's written submissions filed on 13 May 2022 and Respondent's written submissions filed on 7 June 2022
ORDERS:	Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decisions appealed against are confirmed. Pursuant to s 566(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the stay of the disciplinary finding decision I ordered on 12 April 2022 is revoked.
CATCHWORDS:	PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – Appellant employed by the State of Queensland as a Child Safety Officer in the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs – cl 1.8 of the Department's Policy entitled 'COVID‑19 vaccination requirements – all staff' issued by the Director‑General of the Department and operative from 9 February 2022 required the Appellant to have received at least a first dose of a COVID‑19 vaccine by 18 February 2022 and a second dose of a COVID‑19 vaccine by 25 March 2022 unless exempted – Appellant refused to be vaccinated, did not apply for delay to be vaccinated and did not apply for an exemption – Appellant invited to show cause why a disciplinary finding should not be made against her in relation to the allegation she did not comply with the direction that she be vaccinated and why she should not be suspended without pay – Appellant submitted show cause response – disciplinary finding decision that the allegation was substantiated and that Appellant should be suspended without pay – whether disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable – whether suspension without pay decision was fair and reasonable – disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable – suspension without pay decision fair and reasonable – disciplinary finding decision confirmed – suspension without pay decision confirmed
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 562B, s 562C and s 566 Public Service Act 2008, s 187
CASES:	Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203; (2020) 305 IR 311
APPEARANCES:	The Appellant in person. Mr C. South and Ms C. Mumford of the State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs).

Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)

Introduction and background

[1]
Ms Cinnamon Morrissey is employed as a Child Safety Officer by the State of Queensland through the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs ('the Department'). Ms Morrissey is employed in the Child Safety After Hours Service Centre ('the Centre') in West End and is employed on a casual basis in the Department. It seems that Ms Morrissey is employed on a regular and systematic basis as a casual employee at the Centre. Ms Morrissey has been employed at the Centre since 2015.

[2]
The role profile of Ms Morrissey's position relevantly provides that the principal responsibilities of the role include:

Deliver child protection services in accordance with departmental policies and procedures, statutory responsibilities, and contemporary best practice standards in an after hours environment.

Deliver high quality, culturally appropriate child protection services including intervention, casework and case management, to children, young people and families after hours.

Participate productively as a team member and form culturally appropriate, professional working relationships with colleagues and stakeholders, including children, young people and families.

[3]
On 8 February 2022, Ms Deidre Mulkerin, the Director-General of the Department, approved a policy entitled 'COVID-19 vaccination requirements - all staff' ('the Policy').

[4]
The Policy operated from 9 February 2022.

[5]
Clause 1.8 of the Policy ('Vaccination requirements') relevantly provides that employees currently undertaking a role in the Department must have received at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 18 February 2022 and must have received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 25 March 2022.

[6]
Clause 2.4 of the Policy provides for an employee to request a delay to the vaccination requirements in certain circumstances, including where the employee gives a written undertaking that they intend to comply with the vaccination requirement in the future. Clause 2.5 of the Policy provides for an employee to request a delay to the vaccination requirements to receive the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine. Clause 4.1 of the Policy provides that an employee may be exempted from the requirement to be vaccinated where they have a recognised medical contraindication. The phrase 'medical contraindication' is exhaustively defined in the Policy to mean '… a temporary or permanent contraindication that is notified to the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) and recorded on the person's Immunisation History Statement (IHS).'

[7]
It is not in dispute that Ms Morrissey has refused to comply with the direction given to her, through the Policy, to receive the first and second doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. Indeed, in an affidavit Ms Morrissey filed in these proceedings, she confirmed that she has decided not to get '… the COVID-19 Vaccination at this time' and that she was not yet sure if she will receive the vaccine in the future.

[8]
By letter dated 24 February 2022, Ms Amanda Currie, Assistant Chief Operating Officer of the Department, informed Ms Morrissey that she (Ms Currie) was of the view that Ms Morrissey may be liable to disciplinary findings pursuant to s 187 of the Public Service Act 2008 ('the PS Act'). In doing so, Ms Currie made one allegation against Ms Morrissey, namely, that Ms Morrissey failed to comply with the requirement to receive her first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 18 February 2022. In making that allegation, Ms Currie stated that she considered Ms Morrissey may be liable to disciplinary findings on the basis that, pursuant to s 187(1)(d) of the PS Act, Ms Morrissey may have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a direction given to her as a public service employee by a responsible person.

[9]
In the alternative, Ms Currie stated that she considered Ms Morrissey may be liable to a disciplinary finding on the basis that, pursuant to s 187(1)(g) of the PS Act, Ms Morrissey may have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct, namely, the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service, specifically, cl 3.1e. which relevantly provides that public service employees will '… adhere to the policies, organisational values, and organisational documents of our employing agency.'

[10]
Ms Currie also advised Ms Morrissey that she was considering whether or not it would be appropriate for the Department to continue paying Ms Morrissey in the event the allegation made against her was substantiated. Ms Currie stated that she was giving consideration to suspending Ms Morrissey from duty without remuneration, that is without pay, effective from 28 March 2022 until 30 June 2022.

[11]
Ms Currie gave Ms Morrissey 21 calendar days of Ms Morrissey's receipt of her letter to:

show cause why the disciplinary finding, as alleged, should not be made against Ms Morrissey; and

show cause why Ms Morrissey should not be suspended from duty without remuneration effective from 28 March 2022 until 30 June 2022.

[12]
Ms Morrissey responded in writing to Ms Currie.

[13]
By letter dated 24 March 2022, Ms Currie informed Ms Morrissey that she had decided that:

Ms Morrissey failed to comply with the requirement to receive her first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 18 February 2022 ('the disciplinary finding decision'); and

Ms Morrissey should be suspended from duty without remuneration effective 28 March 2022 until 30 June 2022 ('the suspension without pay decision').

[14]
I was informed today that the period of Ms Morrissey's suspension from duty without remuneration has been extended until 30 September 2022.

[15]
By appeal notice filed on 7 April 2022, Ms Morrissey, pursuant to ch 7, pt 1 of the PS Act, appealed against those two decisions.

[16]
By directions order dated 12 April 2022, I stayed the operation of the disciplinary finding decision and made further directions for the parties to file and serve written submissions in respect of Ms Morrissey's appeal. Ms Morrissey did not file and serve written submissions but filed an affidavit. However, I will treat Ms Morrissey's affidavit as her written submissions for this appeal. The Department, as directed, filed and served written submissions.

[17]
I heard Ms Morrissey's appeal today. I gave both parties the further opportunity to make oral submissions in relation to their respective cases. Both parties made further oral submissions.

[18]
The purpose of an appeal pursuant to ch 7, pt 1 of the PS Act is to determine whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.^[1] The issue for determination in such an appeal is whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.^[2]

[19]
The matters I have to determine in this appeal are:

whether the disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable; and

whether the suspension without pay decision was fair and reasonable.

The disciplinary finding decision

[20]
In her decision, in so far as it dealt with the disciplinary finding, Ms Currie relevantly stated:

Response regarding allegation

I note within your responses, you make the following submissions:

You 'did not qualify for a temporary medical exemption' and do not intend to be 'vaccinated for COVID'.
You have been advised by your Doctor not to get the vaccination and 'advised that the possible health implications of getting the shot out ways [sic] the possible benefits from having it'.
You are willing to work from home and will wear a mask where necessary, but will not comply with testing requirements. You seek to access leave until the 'government rules are changed and mandates are lifted'.
You believe that it is 'unreasonable to terminate [your] employment given [your] years of experience in the department and [your] low level risk [sic] contracting/spreading COVID'

I have reached my own conclusions independently regarding the allegation. I have fully and carefully considered all the information available to me. The fact that a particular matter is not specifically addressed in this letter does not mean that I did not carefully consider it.

[21]
Ms Currie then went on to give her reasons for making the disciplinary finding. After setting out the advice given by the Director-General of the Department to employees prior to the introduction of the Policy, the consultation undertaken with employees prior to the introduction of the Policy and the fact of the approval and operation of the Policy, Ms Currie stated:

The policy set out the vaccination requirements for all employees - specifically employees must:
1. have received at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 18 February 2022, and
2. have received a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 25 March 2022, and
3. where subsequent, or additional, doses of a COVID-19 vaccine are required for an employee to continue to be considered 'fully vaccinated', have received the required COVID-19 vaccination by a date as determined by the chief executive under the policy.

Clause 1.9 of the policy requires employees to provide evidence confirming they have received the required number of doses of the vaccine and outlines that failure to comply may result in a disciplinary process.

You are required to comply with the requirement to receive a COVID-19 vaccination outlined within clause 1.8 of the policy unless your circumstances are relevant to clause 2.4, 2.5 and/or 4.1 regarding delays due to exceptional circumstances and medical exemptions, and you have met the requirements within those clauses. Departmental records indicate you have not applied for a delay due to exceptional circumstances or applied for an exemption.

You were required to have received your first dose of the COVID-19 vaccination by 18 February 2022 and to provide evidence of that vaccination dose as soon as practicable. Departmental records indicate you have not provided any evidence of having received the first vaccination dose.

You have not provided evidence of having an exemption granted in accordance with the policy.

In failing to receive at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccination by 18 February 2022 and provide evidence of that vaccination dose, you may have failed to comply with the policy and failed to comply with a direction given to you by the Director-General that took effect 9 February 2022.

Based on my finding in relation to Allegation one, I have determined that pursuant to section 187(1)(d) of the PS Act you have contravened without a reasonable excuse, a direction given to you as a public service employee by a responsible person.

[22]
Ms Currie then provided Ms Morrissey with 14 days from her receipt of her (Ms Currie's) letter to show cause why the discipline action which Ms Currie was giving serious consideration to imposing, namely, termination of employment, should not be taken.

[23]
As stated earlier, by directions order dated 12 April 2022, I stayed the operation of Ms Currie's disciplinary finding decision. By my decision today, I am not considering an appeal against any disciplinary action imposed against Ms Morrissey by the Department.

The suspension without remuneration decision

[24]
In respect of the decision to suspend Ms Morrissey without remuneration, Ms Currie, in the decision, relevantly stated:

In determining whether your suspension should be without remuneration, I have considered the following:

Your failure to adhere to the departments Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination policy and subsequently your failure to comply with the requirements for certain work settings as defined in the CHO public health directions.

Your inability to perform the inherent duties of your role because the CHO public health directions exclude non vaccinated workers from attending and/or working in certain settings.

The appropriate use of public moneys in continuing to pay an employee in circumstances where you have failed to follow a lawful and reasonable direction and are unable to undertake the inherent duties of your role.

The appropriate use of public monies in continuing to pay an employee in circumstances where you have failed to follow a lawful and reasonable direction and are unable to attend the inherent duties of your role.

The importance of maintaining financial accountability and public trust in the department regarding the appropriate expenditure of public monies and the department's statutory financial accountability obligations.

Whilst you have not provided any specific financial impacts or information, you have offered to go on unpaid leave or be unavailable for shifts as a casual employee until 30 June 2022 or earlier if the mandates are lifted.

In accordance with section 137(3) of the PS Act, I have again considered whether there are any reasonable alternatives to suspending you from duty, including temporary relieving arrangements in alternative duties (either in your current workplace or another workplace), a transfer, or another alternative working arrangement. In considering this, I have again undertaken an assessment of the allegation and your role within the department, and whether your continuation in the role or another role presents any potential risk to the department, its employees, clients or others.

In my view having regard to the nature of the allegation against you and having carefully considered that [sic] your role as a Child Safety Officer is required to perform, there is an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of clients, other staff, yourself, and the department if you were to remain in your role. Your continued workplace presence whilst an allegation of this nature is on foot, and where the public could expect to find public servants adhering to the policies of the department, is inappropriate. Additionally, your continued workplace presence, in your current role or an alternative role, would be inconsistent with the department's responsibility to ensure the safety and welfare of clients in its care and its duty of care to the department's employees and clients, particularly in circumstances where you refuse to comply with testing requirements.

In furtherance to this, it is not operationally viable or appropriate to allow you to access extended leave without pay, particularly in circumstances where you have wilfully failed to follow a lawful and reasonable direction and where the arrangement would continue for the foreseeable future.

Ms Morrissey's submissions

[25]
Many of Ms Morrissey's submissions went to whether or not the decision (which has not been taken) to terminate her employment would be fair. Despite this, as best I understand her submissions, Ms Morrissey submits that the disciplinary finding decision is not fair and reasonable because:

she will wear a mask when needed, she will adhere to frequent hand washing, she takes vitamins and minerals to support her immune system and if she feels sick, she will stay away from work and test accordingly;

her decision not to vaccinate for COVID-19 will not place others at a higher risk or impact on her ability to fulfil her Departmental role;

in regards to risk, vaccinated people can still spread COVID-19, that risk is mitigated through good hygiene, social distancing and optimal health, and therefore as she practices those safety measures, she would not be at a higher risk of spreading COVID-19 to others if she was to return to her role at work;

in relation to her role, she understands that as a Child Safety Officer she is required to interact with vulnerable people and that vulnerable people are more at risk of contracting COVID-19; however, she notes that her role is not a day role in the Centre where she has a caseload of children to manage and that she is in a unique position where she is a casual shift worker, without a caseload, and where she works mainly late evening and night time;

as she stated in her correspondence to Ms Currie dated 6 April 2022, she is able to manage her shifts over the phone without the need to leave the office and in fact:

she has only gone out on a job once in the last seven years that she has been with the Centre;

there is always enough staff on shift to balance people out of the office and people remaining in the office to attend to phones; and

she is able to problem solve issues and work with community partners in creating effective solutions; and

she meets every mandatory requirement of her role as a Child Safety Officer at the Centre and nowhere does it say in her position's role profile that she is required to leave the office to work with vulnerable people face-to-face.

[26]
Ms Morrissey then relevantly submits:

In addition to the above, the progress being made in Australia around vaccines and decreasing mandates may lead to Qld Health Workers not needing to be vaccinated. For example, the Health Minister of the Australian Capital Territory (herein referred to as ACT) has announced that workers in Education and Health Care will soon not require [sic] to be vaccinated for COVID-19…

[27]
Ms Morrissey made no written submissions contending that the decision to suspend her without remuneration was not fair and reasonable. However, Ms Morrissey made oral submissions to the effect that the decision to suspend her without remuneration was not fair and reasonable.

[28]
In oral submissions made today, Ms Morrissey submitted, in respect of the disciplinary finding decision:

that her doctor advised her that she did not qualify for a medical contraindication as defined in the Policy and that, as set out in Exhibit 1, she informed her immediate supervisor, Mr Armando Garcia, of that fact in an email she sent to him on Saturday, 18 December 2021;

she believed that Ms Currie knew of that advice from her doctor;

because of the nature of her work, the time she worked and where she worked, the circumstances of her employment could be managed where she did not come in contact with members of the public or clients, being a matter which was not taken into account by Ms Currie;

she (Ms Morrissey) did not feel she had the need to give all information to Ms Currie in respect of the decision Ms Currie had to make;

she was happy to work from home, being something that was not taken into account by Ms Currie in the decision; and

the decision was not made on a case by case basis as set out in information provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

[29]
In answer to questions from me, Ms Morrissey accepted that she did not apply, pursuant to the Policy, for an exemption on the basis of a recognised medical contraindication as defined in the Policy and, further, she did not apply for a delay in the requirement to be vaccinated on the basis of any other exemptions set out in the Policy.

[30]
In further oral submissions, Ms Morrissey relevantly submitted, in respect of the decision to suspend her without remuneration:

the decision was unjust because the decision had no financial impact on the Department while it had a financial impact on her; and

she was advised that she could not apply for any accrued but untaken paid leave during the time she was suspended without remuneration.

The Department's submissions

[31]
The Department submits that the disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable because:

Ms Morrissey admits she has not received a COVID-19 vaccine and, therefore, she has not complied with the requirements of the Policy such that it was open for Ms Currie to substantiate the allegation made against Ms Morrissey;

Ms Morrissey was provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show cause notice;

Ms Morrissey claims the reasons for her not becoming vaccinated is due to her health namely, her statement that she has had cancer in the past two years, that she has had numerous surgeries and radiations, that her body does not detoxify well and she does not trust the COVID-19 vaccines to be safe;

while Ms Morrissey's reasons for not being vaccinated '… are not insignificant', Ms Morrissey made no attempt to make an application under cls 2.4, 2.5 and/or 4.1 of the Policy to seek a delay or exemption from the requirements of the Policy;

the matters raised by Ms Morrissey in her submissions may be characterised as vaccine hesitancy;

vaccine hesitancy or personal preference not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine:

would not justify the grant of a delay or exemption under cls 2.4, 2.5 and 4.1 of the Policy; and

does not result in unreasonableness by the Department to require compliance with the direction to receive a COVID-19 vaccine having regard to the risks posed by the virus;

the available relevant vaccines are approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which is a matter of public record, as is evidence of their safety and efficacy; and

in the absence of any specific information or evidence of exceptional circumstances or a medical contraindication preventing Ms Morrissey from becoming vaccinated safely, Ms Currie was not able to determine that Ms Morrissey had a reasonable excuse for failing to adhere to the Policy.

[32]
In terms of the decision by Ms Currie to suspend Ms Morrissey without remuneration, the Department submitted that decision was fair and reasonable due to:

Ms Morrissey's response being that she did not intend to comply with the direction to be vaccinated;

the Department's position that the Policy will remain in force for the reasonably foreseeable future and Ms Morrissey's failure to comply with the direction is serious;

Ms Currie's determination that no reasonable alternatives were available given the seriousness of the substantiated allegation and that no reasonable alternative work role or adjustments were available to properly manage the risk arising from Ms Morrissey's non-compliance with the Policy; and

the fact that the financial impact of suspension without pay is only one factor to be considered and must be balanced with the Department's obligation to ensure the effective, efficient and appropriate use of public resources, including the spending of public funds.

[33]
In oral submissions, the Department confirmed that Ms Morrissey could apply to take paid leave during the period of her suspension without pay (which is now until 30 September 2022) because of the financial effect the suspension without pay has on her.

The disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable

[34]
While I have sympathy for Ms Morrissey, particularly given the personal and family health issues she has had to deal with in recent times as set out in her responses to Ms Currie dated 6 and 7 April 2022, in my view, the disciplinary finding decision made by Ms Currie was fair and reasonable.

[35]
This is because:

the Policy, by its terms, applies to Ms Morrissey in her position of Child Safety Officer, because she was an employee of the Department at the time of the operation of the Policy and when the Policy mandated the requirement that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19;

there is no reason to suggest that the direction to be vaccinated against COVID‑19, as contained in the Policy, is other than a lawful direction;

Ms Morrissey has refused to comply with the lawful direction contained in the Policy to receive the relevant doses of a COVID-19 vaccine;

Ms Morrissey, despite having the opportunity to do so, did not apply for a delay or exemption from the operation of the Policy as provided for in cls 2.4, 2.5 or 4.1 of the Policy;

the fact Ms Morrissey's personal health circumstances did not give rise to a medical contraindication as defined within the Policy is, in itself, not a reason to find that the decision was other than fair and reasonable, because on the information before Ms Currie, there was no evidence Ms Morrissey had applied for any form of an exemption under the Policy;

I accept the Department's submissions that Ms Morrissey's reasons for refusing to receive the relevant doses of a COVID-19 vaccine amount to her own personal views about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, however, such personal views, which I accept are genuinely held by Ms Morrissey, do not, in the absence of Ms Morrissey applying for and being granted any form of exemption under the Policy, exempt Ms Morrissey from compliance with the direction contained in the Policy; and

it is Ms Morrissey's choice as to whether or not she complies with the direction to receive the relevant doses of a COVID-19 vaccine as contained in the Policy however, her refusal to comply with that lawful direction made it fair and reasonable for Ms Currie to come to the decision to which she came, namely, the disciplinary finding contained in the decision.

[36]
One of the criticisms Ms Morrissey made about Ms Currie's decision was that Ms Currie did not take into account the fact that Ms Morrissey's work could be organised such that she did not leave her office during her periods of employment so that the risk of her coming in contact with members of the public or clients would be minimised.

[37]
However, in answer to questions from me today, Ms Morrissey conceded that when she did some shifts on weekends, she may be required to leave the office and that in those circumstances she may come into contact with members of the public. In any event, Ms Morrissey would be coming into contact with work colleagues while she was working in the office. Clause 1.5 of the Policy sets out the principles for the introduction of the Policy. In that respect, the Policy provides that vaccination remains the most effective protection against serious illness from COVID-19 to protect the Department's staff, workplaces and clients, as far as is reasonably practicable, from the transmission of COVID-19 in the community; and that the isolation of the workforce in respect of diagnosed cases of COVID-19, or the management of close contacts, would significantly affect the continuity of critical services provided by the Department.

[38]
For these reasons, the fact that Ms Morrissey may have minimal contact with members of the public in the performance of her duties is not a sufficient reason to determine that Ms Currie's decision was other than fair and reasonable. Ms Morrissey may have contact with members of the public, and she would obviously have contact with her colleagues when performing her duties. It is the reduction in the risk of having staff away from work, due to the serious impacts of the virus on an individual, and the effects such absences have on the provision of the Department's services to the public, that the Policy seeks to address.

[39]
The fact that the requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19 for certain public sector workers in other jurisdictions within Australia may be relaxed is not a sufficient reason for Ms Morrissey not to comply with the direction contained in the Policy. Today, Ms Morrissey informed me that some Queensland government agencies, who have required that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, will relax those requirements in the second part of this year. However, the fact was that the Policy was on foot at the time Ms Morrissey refused to comply with the direction contained in the policy to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

[40]
Many of Ms Morrissey's submissions went to the question of whether the proposed disciplinary action, namely, the termination of her employment, would be fair. Those are not issues that I have the jurisdiction to consider in this appeal.

[41]
For these reasons, the disciplinary finding decision made by Ms Currie was one that was open to her to make. The decision, therefore, was fair and reasonable.

The suspension without remuneration decision was fair and reasonable

[42]
In my view, the decision to suspend Ms Morrissey without remuneration was one that was fair and reasonable.

[43]
The deliberate refusal of Ms Morrissey to comply with the direction to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is a serious matter. I accept that Ms Morrissey has reasons, which she genuinely holds, for her deliberate refusal to comply with the direction to be vaccinated. However, the Policy contained a lawful direction with which Ms Morrissey has refused to comply and on present indications, with which she will continue to refuse to comply.

[44]
In those circumstances, there is no reason why the State of Queensland should continue to pay Ms Morrissey while the disciplinary process commenced against her continues.

[45]
However, as confirmed today by the Department, during Ms Morrissey's period of suspension without pay, she may apply to take any accrued but untaken paid leave she has available to her.

Conclusion

[46]
For the reasons I have given, the disciplinary finding decision and the decision to suspend Ms Morrissey without remuneration were fair and reasonable.

[47]
Both decisions are confirmed.

Orders

[48]
I make the following orders:

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

Pursuant to s 566(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the stay of the disciplinary finding decision I ordered on 12 April 2022 is revoked.

Footnotes

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

[2] Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203; (2020) 305 IR 311, [4]-[7].

Editorial Notes

Published Case Name:
Morrissey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs)
Shortened Case Name:
Morrissey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs)
MNC:
[2022] QIRC 303
Court:
QIRC
Judge(s):
Merrell DP
Date:
28 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 List of Cases Cited by this judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women)	[2020] QIRC 203	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 203 Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 203
Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women)	(2020) 305 IR 311	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (2020) 305 IR 311 Cite 2 - (2020) 305 IR 311

Cases Citing List of cases on Queensland Judgments citing this Judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Fletcher v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)	[2023] QIRC 45	2 citations
Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)	[2023] QIRC 75	2 citations
McGarry v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)	[2023] QIRC 32	2 citations

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Change Font and Font Size

Morrissey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs)[2022] QIRC 303