Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Glennon-Tooley v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning) - [2022] QIRC 313

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

Glennon-Tooley v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)[2022] QIRC 313

Glennon-Tooley v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)[2022] QIRC 313

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Glennon-Tooley v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning) [2022] QIRC 313

PARTIES:

Glennon-Tooley, Joan

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

PSA/2022/334

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal - Appeal against promotion decision

DELIVERED ON:

11 August 2022

MEMBER:

Merrell DP

HEARD AT:

On the papers

DATES OF WRITTEN

SUBMISSIONS:

Appellant's written submissions filed on 14 April 2022 and on 13 June 2022, and Respondent's written submissions filed on 30 May 2022

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – APPOINTMENT UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE AND SIMILAR ACTS – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – Appellant employed by the State of Queensland in the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning in the position of Senior Economic Development Officer, classification AO5 – Appellant applied for the advertised vacancy of Senior Economic Development Officer, classification AO6 – Appellant shortlisted and interviewed – Appellant assessed by the recruitment and selection panel as second in the order of merit – another applicant appointed to the position – Appellant appealed against selection decision – Appellant claims that selection panel primarily focussed on her interview performance and not on her past history and experience and that inadequate feedback was provided such that the recruitment and selection panel did not comply with clauses 7.2(b) and 10.3 of Directive: 12/20 – Recruitment and selection –whether decision appealed against was fair and reasonable – whether selection panel failed to comply with Directive: 12/20 – Recruitment and selection – decision appealed against fair and reasonable – selection panel did not fail to comply with clauses 7.2(b) and 10.3 of Directive:12/20 – Recruitment and selection – decision appealed against confirmed

LEGISLATION:

Directive: 12/20 - Recruitment and selection, cl 7 and cl 10

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

Public Service Act 2008, s 27, s 28, s 29, s 197 and s 201

CASES:

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

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Joan Glennon-Tooley is currently employed by the State of Queensland in the position of Senior Economic Development Officer, classification AO5, in the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning ('the Department'). The section of the Department in which Ms Glennon-Tooley is employed is State Development/Far North Queensland Regional Office in Cairns ('the Regional Office'). Ms Glennon-Tooley has been employed in that position since July 2009.
  1. [2]
    On 21 December 2021, the vacant position of Senior Economic Development Officer classification AO6, located in the Regional Office, was publicly advertised ('the position'). Ms Glennon-Tooley, along with three other applicants, applied for the position. A recruitment and selection panel was convened for the purposes of making a recommendation to the relevant delegate for an applicant to be appointed to the position. The recruitment and selection panel consisted of:
  • Ms Belinda Hutchinson, an employee in the Department, holding the position of Acting Manager, Economic Development in the Regional Office;
  • Ms Annette Tranent, an employee of the Department, holding the position of Principal Economic Development Officer, Economic Development in the Regional Office; and
  • Mr Angelo Finocchiaro, Executive Manager, Economic Development, Tablelands Regional Council, as a representative external to the Department ('the panel').
  1. [3]
    Ms Hutchinson was the chairperson of the panel.
  1. [4]
    Ms Glennon-Tooley, along with two of the other applicants, were shortlisted by the panel. The shortlisted applicants were interviewed on 25 January 2022. Following referee reports being completed for the applicant assessed by the panel to be first in the order of merit, on 7 February 2022 the panel provided a nomination for appointment report ('the nomination report') to the relevant delegate for consideration. Ms Rebecca Turner was first in the order of merit and Ms Glennon-Tooley second.
  1. [5]
    On the same day, the delegate approved the panel's recommendation which was for Ms Turner to be appointed to the position.
  1. [6]
    Public notification, in the Queensland Government Gazette, of the appointment of Ms Turner to the position occurred on 25 February 2022 ('the decision').
  1. [7]
    By appeal notice filed on 28 February 2022, Ms Glennon-Tooley, pursuant to ch 7, pt 1 of the Public Service Act 2008 ('the PS Act') appealed against the decision. In her appeal notice, Ms Glennon-Tooley contends that the panel was deficient in the recruitment and selection process and did not comply with cl 7.2(b) and cl 10.3 of Directive: 12/20 - Recruitment and selection ('the Directive'). Specifically, Ms Glennon-Tooley contends that:
  • in focusing on her interview performance, the assessment process did not take into consideration her extensive previous work history and experience, her abilities, skills and knowledge against the key attributes of the role; and
  • the post-selection feedback she received from Ms Hutchinson, as chairperson of the panel, was not specific as to why she was not successful and she did not receive a sufficient explanation of the panel's recommendation.
  1. [8]
    Section 197 of the PS Act provides that an appeal under ch 7, pt 1 of the PS Act is to be heard and determined under ch 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act') by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The principles applicable under the former s 201 of the PS Act, about the nature of such public service appeals, apply to the equivalent provisions in s 562B(2) and s 562B(3) of the IR Act.[1]
  1. [9]
    I must decide the appeal by reviewing the decision appealed against.[2] Because the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears. An appeal under ch 11, pt 6, div 4 of the IR Act is not by way of rehearing, but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision‑making process associated therewith.[3] The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[4]
  1. [10]
    The relief that can be ordered for a successful appellant to a promotion appeal is to 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 Public Service Commission chief executive under the PS Act that this Commission considers appropriate.[5]
  1. [11]
    Section 562C(2) of the IR Act provides that in deciding a promotion appeal, the Commission may set the decision aside only if the Commission finds that the recruitment or selection process was deficient, having regard to whether the process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive of the Public Service Commission chief executive under the PS Act.[6] The Directive is such a directive.
  1. [12]
    In my view, the operative effect of s 562C(2) of the IR Act is that in deciding whether a promotion decision appealed against was fair and reasonable, the issue for determination is limited to whether the process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or the Directive.
  1. [13]
    For the reasons that follow, I find that the decision was fair and reasonable. As a consequence, I will confirm the decision.
  1. [14]
    I will deal with the two claims Ms Glennon-Tooley makes regarding the panel's alleged non-compliance with the Directive.

In focusing on her interview performance, the panel did not take into consideration Ms Glennon-Tooley's previous work history and experience, her abilities, skills and knowledge against the key attributes of the role

The relevant legislative provisions

  1. [15]
    Section 27(1) of the PS Act provides that the selection, under the PS Act, of an eligible person for an appointment or secondment as a public service employee must be based on merit alone, referred to as the 'merit principle'.
  1. [16]
    Sections 28 and 29 of the PS Act provide:

28 Merit criteria

In applying the merit principle to a person, the following must be taken into account-

  1. (a)
    the extent to which the person has abilities, aptitude, skills, qualifications, knowledge, experience and personal qualities relevant to the carrying out of the duties in question;
  1. (b)
    if relevant-
  1. (i)
    the way in which the person carried out any previous employment or occupational duties; and
  1. (ii)
    the extent to which the person has potential for development.

29 Directives about applying the merit principle

  1. (1)
    A directive of the commission chief executive may provide for how selection, under the merit principle, for a stated type of appointment or secondment must be carried out.
  2. (2)
    A selection for an appointment or secondment must comply with any relevant directive under subsection (1).
  1. [17]
    Clause 7 of the Directive relevantly provides:

7. Merit assessment and decisions

7.1 Merit assessment must occur irrespective of whether a vacancy is advertised or not. Subject to clause 7.2, chief executives are responsible for determining the activities required to assess merit.

7.2 Assessment processes for advertised vacancies must:

  1. (a)
    incorporate selection techniques that enable a sufficiently comprehensive assessment of the applicants’ merit within the current context and duties of the role
  1. (b)
    take into consideration all merit information before the selection panel, rather than focusing on one aspect of the assessment process (e.g. interview performance)
  1. (c)
    incorporate pre-employment checks including referee checking as per clause 8
  1. (d)
    measure the relative merit of each applicant, and
  1. (e)
    be consistent with the principles of employment equity and anti-discrimination.

Ms Glennon-Tooley's submissions

  1. [18]
    In response to directions I made in this matter, Ms Glennon-Tooley filed and served two sets of written submissions, being written submissions filed on 14 April 2022 and written submissions in reply filed on 13 June 2022. The Department filed its submissions on 30 May 2022.
  1. [19]
    In her principal submissions, Ms Glennon-Tooley submitted:
  • the decision was made by focusing primarily on interview performance and not applying the merit criteria, in that the assessment process did not take into consideration her extensive, previous work experience, capabilities and superior merit against the key attributes of the role; and
  • while the main focus of the position concerns the performance of duties in relation to economic development funding programs and projects for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, organisations, local councils, and businesses in Cape York and the Torres Strait, the panel did not ask any specific questions, in the interview, relating to the duties of the position and not ask any questions on her knowledge, experience or engaging with or providing a service to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or businesses.
  1. [20]
    Ms Glennon-Tooley then submitted that she challenged the decision, based on her superior merit for the position, namely:
  • she is a Torres Strait Islander person, that has engaged extensively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and businesses and has the relevant economic development experience;
  • she has worked considerably longer in the public service then Ms Turner, having worked for both the Queensland and Australian governments for 38 years including as a permanent officer in the Queensland public service from September 2000 working in various departments in Cairns and on Thursday Island;
  • she has been a permanent Senior Economic Development Officer, classification AO5, with the Department in the Regional Office since July 2009, whereas Ms Turner has been working in the team for approximately 2½ years, and in the 12 years she (Ms Glennon-Tooley) has worked in the Regional Office, she has clearly demonstrated her commitment to the Department and to the team and her performance has been of a high standard; and
  • in comparison to Ms Turner, she has had significantly more experience, knowledge and achievements in:
  1. –workshop/webinar facilitation, namely, delivering 38 supply chain workshops, 17 workshops, and two webinars to 1180 participants to all industries across Far North Queensland as well as providing training in workshop delivery to Ms Turner;
  1. –regional industry and client engagement, through significant engagement with various industry sectors, stakeholders and regional clients;
  1. –program, project and contract management through managing two business assistance programs simultaneously, managing 700 contracts over three years, assisting 488 local businesses, being responsible for a $2.6 million budget and managing and acquitting for projects through the Remote Area Board program;
  1. –economic development, through directly assisting businesses to win more work and contracts through delivering supply chain workshops and '… assisting applying for business programs, contributing to economic growth outcomes';
  1. –business development, through the provision of high-quality recommendations to businesses to maintain and grow their businesses;
  1. –event management, through managing and coordinating five Regional Project Forums and arranging multiple events for other agencies for example, Small Business Week and industry briefings;
  1. –procuring and tendering, through seven months experience as a Procurement and Contracts Officer, classification AO7, with experience in evaluating large tenders including a $10,000,000 valuation and the delivery of 'Tendering for Business' workshops;
  1. –Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement, by directly assisting 350 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses through forums and workshops;
  1. –Native Title and Cultural Heritage, in that she (Ms Glennon-Tooley) is the only team member that has experience in Native Title and Cultural Heritage reporting; and
  1. –finance and administration, through her extensive experience resulting in her receiving awards for performing at a high level, and three months experience as a Senior Business Support Officer, classification AO6.
  1. [21]
    By way of conclusion, Ms Glennon-Tooley submitted:
  1. I have undertaken significantly more higher duties at the AO6 and AO7 level than the appointed applicant, with some opportunities as secondments to other government departments. While acting in the advertised AO6 position from May to September 2021 , the appointed applicant did not undertake the duties of that role. I was directed for my "career development" to undertake the duties of the AO6 role from May to December 2021, in addition to my substantive AO5 role, only to receive higher duties from September to December 2021. I demonstrated that I could successfully undertake both roles, simultaneously performing higher level work such as:
    • Training and mentoring of team members in workshop delivery & economic development (responsibility of management)
    • Leading the delivery of the 2021 FNQ Regional Projects Forum (responsibility of AO7 or AO8).
  1. I have a very high skill set that outweighs the appointed applicant by being able to:
  • Lead project and program teams
    • Lead in workshop/webinar facilitation including delivery in remote locations (please note that most lead workshop facilitators in other regional officers are at the AO7 level)
    • Assist businesses to win more work and contracts
  • Write workshop content and presentations
    • Confidently speak in public and independently deliver workshops
    • Identify service delivery gaps and independently address these gaps
    • Identify business and industry opportunities
    • Manage multiple programs simultaneously, execute a high number of contracts and have significant outcomes
    • Frequently collaborate and partner with other government agencies, external clients and stakeholders, in delivering tailored workshops for their clients
    • Provide advice and knowledge to team members on current and previous business and industry engagements, programs and projects.
  1. I have clearly demonstrated in my resume, written response and interview, that I have the ability, skills, knowledge and experience, and superior merit to successfully undertake the duties advertised [sic] AO6 position.

The Department's submissions

  1. [22]
    The Department submitted that the decision was fair and reasonable because:
  • questions for the interviews were developed by the panel based on the requirements and priorities identified for the position;
  • the position is focused on leading industries of emerging significance, providing support to the Principal Economic Development Officers, classification AO7, with more complex industries and assisting Senior Economic Development Officers, classification AO5;
  • because team commitments and priorities can change rapidly, the ability to be flexible, adaptable, proactive, to think strategically, to quickly understand complex industries and issues, to be a team player and to be open to feedback, were identified as important requirements for the position and, accordingly, the interview questions that were put to the applicants who were interviewed were designed to provide the opportunity for them to demonstrate those behaviours and capabilities;
  • through the recruitment process, including through her resume, written application and interview, Ms Glennon-Tooley provided details of her experience and knowledge and the information provided by her was assessed by the panel at that time and formed part of the panel's assessment of Ms Glennon-Tooley's merit, as well as the selection panel's comparative assessment when determining an order of merit and in making a recommendation to the delegate; and
  • while Ms Glennon-Tooley submits that she has worked considerably longer in the public service, as well as undertaking more higher duties at the AO6 and AO7 classification than Ms Turner, Ms Turner also demonstrated extensive experience in the public service of over 10 years and she (Ms Turner) has performed higher duties arrangements during that time; and despite this, the merit principle, as contained in s 28 of the PS Act, is not solely reliant on the number of years of service an applicant possesses.
  1. [23]
    The Department further submitted that:
  • Ms Glennon-Tooley and Ms Turner, also a current public service officer applying for a promotion, were both found to meet the merit principle;
  • the panel unanimously determined that Ms Turner performed to a higher standard across the assessment techniques used and was determined to be more meritorious than Ms Glennon-Tooley; and
  • the panel determined that Ms Glennon-Tooley was ranked second in order of merit based on a comparative statement forming part of the nomination report which was provided to the relevant delegate.
  1. [24]
    The Department then submitted that the nomination report included the following assessments made by the panel:
  • Ms Turner demonstrated a high level of skills and experience relevant to the role an in-depth knowledge of priority sectors through varied industry experience in both the public and private sector; and while Ms Glennon-Tooley's high level of skill and in-depth knowledge of industries was recognised, the panel considered that Ms Glennon-Tooley possess less experience across a broader range of priority sectors, as well as more complex industries;
  • Ms Turner, through providing a greater detailed explanation, also effectively demonstrated how she achieved outcomes;
  • Ms Turner provided excellent responses to the questions at interview, clearly articulating and detailing well-considered responses that were recent, relevant and from a variety of projects including complex projects; and while Ms Glennon‑Tooley provided good and relevant examples, those were drawn from a limited number of projects or activities and some examples were not as recent;
  • the panel recognised Ms Glennon-Tooley's experience in her current areas of expertise, her ability to effectively deliver establish programs and her use of initiative to improve aspects of those programs; however, Ms Turner was able to demonstrate, through her responses, a greater level of flexibility and ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to successfully undertake new or ad hoc work; and
  • two referee reports were received which confirmed the skills and experience outlined by Ms Turner and verified, in respect of Ms Turner, a high level of workplace performance.

Ms Glennon-Tooley's reply submissions

  1. [25]
    In reply, Ms Glennon-Tooley submitted that:
  • Ms Turner may have provided an incorrect claim on her resume, namely, when Ms Turner stated she had assisted with the facilitation of workshops in respect of the Cairns Manufacturing Hub, when both workshops were facilitated and presented by her (Ms Glennon-Tooley) unassisted; and that as Ms Hutchinson was the Acting Manager at the time the workshops were delivered, she would have known Ms Turner did not undertake those duties and she (Ms Hutchinson) overlooked those matters which may have clouded the assessment of merit in the selection process; and
  • in the written comparative assessment of the panel, it stated that she (Ms Glennon‑Tooley) did not display eagerness to take on new or challenging work outside of her current areas of expertise; but that the panel clearly overlooked her previous work history, having undertaken new and challenging work outside of her areas of expertise, which was clearly stated in her interview, written response and resume.
  1. [26]
    In respect of her recent history of having undertaken new and challenging work outside her areas of expertise, Ms Glennon-Tooley submitted:
  • in addition to her normal duties, she was assigned higher level tasks and projects which she prioritised with her existing workload including:
  1. –managing and leading the team delivering the annual Far North Queensland Regional Projects Forum during the disruption of COVID-19, which she(MsGlennon-Tooley) assessed to be the responsibility of a position classified at AO7 or AO8; and
  1. –simultaneously, leading the regional responsibility of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander projects, programs and reporting in the AO6 role; and
  • she successfully completed three secondments, undertaking new and challenging work as;
  1. –a Project Officer, classification AO5, preparing complex Native Title assessments;
  1. –a Senior Business Support Officer, classification AO6, managing financial reporting and budgeting for a high number of cost centres; and
  1. –a Procurement and Contracts Officer, classification AO7, managing recruitment and contracts and completing a high volume of briefing notes and funding agreement approvals.

The panel did not fail to comply with cl 7.2(b) of the Directive

  1. [27]
    The role description for the position relevantly stated:

Your contribution

>> Deliver and promote business, industry and regional development services to support economic growth and diversity to regional clients

>> Facilitate collaborative industry initiatives, industry clusters and supply chain development

>> Identify opportunities (and impediments) and develop strategies to assist in the growth of industry sectors, both existing and emerging, consistent with the Queensland government's economic development objectives

>> Facilitating and assisting industry with their interaction with other agencies and levels of government

>> Develop and maintain effective partnerships and relationships with regional industry stakeholders and other government agencies

>> Contribute positively to regional economic development network group activities including project planning and implementation, operational, organisational and service delivery improvement processes

>> Provide accurate and timely reports, briefings, submissions and other documentation that may be required

>> Monitor and provide feedback to management on new and emerging regional economic development opportunities and issues

>> Demonstrate commitment to the Department's core values of customers first, empower people, unleash potential, be courageous, ideas into action and collaborate

>> Perform other tasks as required by the Regional Director, Manager and team members.

What we are looking for

You will be assessed on your ability to demonstrate the following behaviours in the context of the role accountabilities set out in the 'Your contribution' section above.

Vision:

>> Recognises and articulates how own work directly contributes to the organisation's vision and community outcomes

>> Prioritises projects and tasks efficiently, in line with team commitments

>> Demonstrates flexibility to changing expectations by proactively adapting own approach to reflect new requirements

Results:

>> Communicates in a clear, succinct and deliberate manner, adjusting the message so that it resonates with different stakeholders

>> Listens attentively and proactively seeks to understand others' needs by asking questions and clarifying

>> Welcomes challenges in the delivery of work and demonstrates persistence in working through obstacles

Accountability:

>> Demonstrates respect and appreciation for legislation and policy frameworks by consistently operating to key standards

>> Evaluates possible solutions and takes appropriate steps to mitigate risks

>> Actively seeks feedback and modifies approach to enhance own effectiveness.

Refer to Leadership Competencies for Queensland for more information.

We are also looking for people who will live our values and who are open to change. We manage a mobile, flexible and agile workforce to support service delivery and professional development. Changing organisational needs may mean that employees take on other roles as needed. Please also note that the position description is indicative and may change to reflect the department's objectives and priorities, activities or role focus.

  1. [28]
    The interview questions, developed by the panel, that dealt with the matters under the heading of 'Vision' above, were:
  1. Tell us what you know about the Strategic Objectives and priority sectors for State Development in Far North Queensland.
  1. Of the priority sectors you mentioned, which ones do you have previous experience in, or are of particular interest to you?
  1. We work in an environment that can quickly change. Please provide a recent example of a time when you have demonstrated flexibility and strategic thinking when sudden changes have occurred.
  1. [29]
    The interview questions, developed by the panel, that dealt with the matters under the heading of 'Results' above, were:
  1. Please provide an overview of a project you have initiated and delivered and how you were able to influence to achieve results
  • What steps did you take to ensure the successful project management of the project?
  • How did you communicate with the various stakeholder groups?
  • What was the result of your involvement?
  1. What strengths and characteristics do you bring to a team environment?
  1. [30]
    The interview questions, developed by the panel, that dealt with the matters under the heading of 'Accountability' above, were:
  1. Please identify two of the Queensland Government public service values and how you apply this to your work.
  1. Tell us of a time where you have sought and applied feedback from a colleague or manager for a positive outcome.
  1. How does this role fit with your personal career goals?
  1. [31]
    In the nomination report, the selection panel, in respect of Ms Glennon-Tooley, under the heading 'Overview', wrote:

Joan has a good level of knowledge, skills and experience relevant to the role. Joan has knowledge of priority sectors, but limited experience working across a range of these sectors. She has a solid background in other relevant areas such as construction supply chains and indigenous work.

Joan is a career public servant, with 38 years' experience working in the public sector. She has been a member of the economic development team for over 12 years.

Joan's current position is as an AO5 Senior Economic Development Officer. She has previously acted in the AO6 Senior Economic Development Officer position and worked at an AO7 level with a different department. She holds a Diploma in Business through TAFE and has completed other relevant training.

  1. [32]
    In respect of the matters of Vision, Results and Accountability, concerning Ms Glennon‑Tooley, the panel wrote:

Vision:

  • Recognises and articulates how own work directly contributes to the organisation's vision and community outcomes
  • Prioritises projects and tasks efficiently, in line with team commitments
  • Demonstrates flexibility to changing expectations by proactively adapting own approach to reflect new requirements

Assessment

  • Joan has excellent knowledge of the department's strategic plan, vision, roadmaps and priority sectors and FNQ priority sectors. She understands how her work contributes to job creation and other outcomes.
  • Joan takes pride in her work and is proud of what she has achieved for businesses and industry.
  • Joan demonstrates strong ability to plan and prioritise to deliver well-established programs and events.
  • She demonstrates some flexibility in adapting to changing expectations, within her existing areas of expertise. Her ability to quickly adapt to new or complex industries is not well demonstrated.

Results:

  • Communicates in a clear, succinct and deliberate manner, adjusting the message so that it resonates with different stakeholders
  • Listens attentively and proactively seeks to understand others' needs by asking questions and clarifying
  • Welcomes challenges in the delivery of work and demonstrates persistence in working through obstacles

Assessment

  • Joan is an articulate communicator, experienced public speaker and is confident communicating with well-known contacts.
  • Joan has good network of contacts.
  • Joan has excellent ability to listen to client feedback to make adjustments to improve established programs.
  • Joan showed very good understanding of project management planning and processes.

Accountability:

  • Demonstrates respect and appreciation for legislation and policy frameworks by consistently operating to key standards
  • Evaluates possible solutions and takes appropriate steps to mitigate risks
  • Actively seeks feedback and modifies approach to enhance own effectiveness.

Assessment

  • Joan correctly identified and explained two Queensland Government Public Service values: customers first and collaborate.
  • Joan demonstrates very good understanding of procurement policy, Queensland Charter for Local Content and risk management planning.
  • Joan has excellent ability to follow established processes for seeking feedback.

Example of proactively seeking feedback outside a formal process was not provided.

  1. [33]
    In the nomination report, the selection panel, in respect of Ms Turner, under the heading 'Overview', wrote:

Rebecca has a high level of knowledge, skills and experience relevant to the role. She has recent experience across many priority sectors. Her planning knowledge is advantageous.

Rebecca has worked for the Queensland Government for over 10 years. She also has experience working in the private sector and as a business owner, which provides beneficial insight for engagement with businesses.

Rebecca [sic] substantive position is as an AO5 Senior Economic Development Officer. She is currently acting as an AO7 Executive Services Manager within the Executive Regional Director's office. She has previously acted in the AO6 Senior Economic Development Officer position. Rebecca has a Diploma in Business and Diploma in Planning, both obtained at a university level. She also has other relevant training.

  1. [34]
    In respect of the matters of Vision, Results and Accountability concerning Ms Turner, the panel wrote:

Vision:

  • Recognises and articulates how own work directly contributes to the organisation's vision and community outcomes
  • Prioritises projects and tasks efficiently, in line with team commitments
  • Demonstrates flexibility to changing expectations by proactively adapting own approach to reflect new requirements

Assessment:

  • Rebecca has excellent knowledge and understanding of the department's strategic plan, vision, roadmaps and priority sectors and FNQ priority sectors. She provided accurate examples of how her own work relates back to the Strategic Plan.
  • Rebecca demonstrates excellent ability to undertake work in new areas, understand complex industries with a high technical requirement and learn quickly.
  • Rebecca undertook work in marine/defence after the transfer of the AO7 officer. Other examples were also provided. She shows excellent ability to be flexible and adjust workload to support changing expectations and team commitments and undertake ad hoc work without established processes.

Results:

  • Communicates in a clear, succinct and deliberate manner, adjusting the message so that it resonates with different stakeholders
  • Listens attentively and proactively seeks to understand others' needs by asking questions and clarifying
  • Welcomes challenges in the delivery of work and demonstrates persistence in working through obstacles

Assessment

  • Rebecca is a confident communicator. She has a very good network of contacts.
  • Rebecca has excellent understanding of different methods of communication and how these are used for effective stakeholder engagement
  • She has some experience in delivering public presentations and workshops.
  • Planning and production of the FNQ Major Projects Pipeline booklet is an excellent example of her written work and attention to detail.
  • Rebecca showed excellent understanding of project management planning and processes.
  • Rebecca strongly demonstrates understanding of importance of listening to balance needs of the department and stakeholders.
  • Rebecca displays an easy-going nature and positive attitude towards supporting team and facing challenges.

Accountability:

  • Demonstrates respect and appreciation for legislation and policy frameworks by consistently operating to key standards
  • Evaluates possible solutions and takes appropriate steps to mitigate risks
    • Actively seeks feedback and modifies approach to enhance own effectiveness.

Assessment

  • Rebecca correctly identified and explained three Queensland Government Public Service values and how she uses these in her role: collaborate, customers first and unleash potential.
  • Rebecca displays strong appreciation for use of legislation and policy frameworks for achieving consistent outcomes and reduce risk e.g. grant work.
  • She understands the role of communication and that sometimes difficult conversations are required to reach the best solution and mitigate risk.
  • Rebecca demonstrates willingness to proactively seek and apply feedback.
  • She displays a strong commitment to continuous learning and improvement.
  1. [35]
    Clause 7.2(b) of the Directive provides that assessment processes for advertised vacancies must take into consideration all merit information before the selection panel, rather than focusing on one aspect of the assessment process, for example, interview process. A number of things may be said about the selection process adopted by the panel in respect of Ms Glennon-Tooley's claim that the panel failed to comply with cl 7.2(b) of the Directive.
  1. [36]
    First, in my opinion, the selection panel, by shortlisting Ms Glennon-Tooley to be interviewed, took into account all of her history, past work experience and her ability, skills and knowledge, in so far as they were relevant to the key attributes of the position as set out in the role description.
  1. [37]
    Secondly, the interview questions, which I have set out earlier in these reasons, were appropriate questions to elicit information from each interviewed applicant, so the selection panel could make an assessment about the applicant in respect of the ability of the applicant to demonstrate the nominated capabilities and behaviours under the headings of 'Vision', 'Results' and 'Accountability' in the role description. Indeed, Ms Glennon-Tooley, in her submissions, did not contend otherwise.
  1. [38]
    Thirdly, having regard to the comparative merit assessment by the panel of Ms Turner and of Ms Glennon‑Tooley, as set out in the nomination report, it cannot be reasonably said that the decision to assess Ms Turner as first in the order of merit, and Ms Glennon‑Tooley as second, was a decision made by the panel solely on interview performance. This is because, in assessing their merit against the nominated capabilities and behaviours under the headings of 'Vision', 'Results' and 'Accountability', the panel referred to all the material before them, not just the answers Ms Turner and Ms Glennon‑Tooley gave to the questions in the interviews. Certainly, the answers they gave were, properly, taken into account by the panel. However, the panel's comparative merit assessment conclusion was not solely based on the answers given in interviews.
  1. [39]
    For example, in respect of the assessment, by the panel, of Ms Glennon-Tooley's merit in respect of the capability of 'Vision', that assessment clearly refers to Ms Glennon‑Tooley's past work history and performance, and her abilities and skills. Similarly in respect of the assessment, by the panel, of Ms Glennon-Tooley's merit in respect of the capabilities of 'Results', once again, part of that assessment was based upon Ms Glennon-Tooley's past work history and performance. No doubt in respect of that capability, and in respect of the capability of 'Accountability', the answers Ms Glennon‑Tooley gave in the interviews were taken into account. So much is clear from the nomination report.
  1. [40]
    However, for the reasons I have given, I cannot say that the decision was other than fair and reasonable on the basis that the assessment of Ms Glennon-Tooley, as compared to Ms Turner, was focused primarily on interview performance. The assessment of Ms Glennon-Tooley, as compared to Ms Turner, was not focused primarily or disproportionately on interview performance. The merit principle was observed by the panel.
  1. [41]
    In addition, having regard to the nomination report, there is nothing that strikes me as being clearly obvious or apparent that the assessment of Ms Turner, as being a more meritorious applicant compared to Ms Glennon-Tooley, was wrong or incorrect. Further, even if the allegation made by Ms Glennon-Tooley, that Ms Turner may have provided an incorrect claim on her resume about her involvement in certain workshops is true, (and I make no finding that such an allegation is true) that issue, on its own, does not persuade me that the recommendation of the selection panel and the decision was not fair and reasonable.
  1. [42]
    True, in respect of the capability of 'Results', the panel referred to Ms Turner as having some experience in delivering public presentations and workshops. However, even if that assessment was somewhat inaccurate, having regard to the overall assessment made by the panel of Ms Turner, that one inaccuracy could not result in a striking down of that overall assessment. This is because of the comprehensively favourable assessment of Ms Turner in respect of the capabilities of 'Vision' and 'Accountability' and in respect of the assessment of Ms Turner in the other aspects of the capability of 'Results'.
  1. [43]
    For all these reasons, I am not persuaded that the selection panel failed to comply with cl 7.2(b) of the Directive.

The post-selection feedback from Ms Hutchinson, as chairperson of the panel, was not specific as to why Ms Glennon-Tooley was not successful and Ms Glennon‑Tooley was not provided a sufficient explanation of the panel's recommendation

The relevant legislative provisions

  1. [44]
    Clause 10 of the Directive provides:

10. Post selection feedback

10.1 Subject to clause 10.2 all applicants are to be advised that they may request feedback.

10.2 Graduate applicants who are interviewed are to be advised they are entitled to request feedback.

  1. 10.3
    Applicants who request feedback must receive timely, specific and constructive feedback from a member of the selection panel sufficient to explain the panel’s recommendation and the decision maker’s decision.

Ms Glennon-Tooley's submissions

  1. [45]
    In her principal submissions, Ms Glennon-Tooley submitted the post-selection feedback she received was not specific as to why she was not successful and that she did not receive a sufficient explanation of the panel's recommendation in that:
  • the post-selection feedback from Ms Hutchinson focused on her interview performance, which raised, in Ms Glennon-Tooley, a reasonable concern about whether a robust assessment was conducted or if performance in one component of the assessment process was all that was taken into consideration by the panel; and
  • the post-selection feedback which referred to her performance in the interview included:
  1. –her failure to mention a partially completed university project management course, despite her providing a project management example in her interview and demonstrating her previous training and experience in her application; and
  1. –her failure to mention more examples using her initiative, when only one question was asked about using initiative and she had provided a relevant example in her interview and demonstrated previous experience in her application.

The Department's submissions

  1. [46]
    In terms of post-selection feedback, the Department submitted that the verbal feedback provided to Ms Glennon-Tooley by Ms Hutchinson included advice to Ms Glennon‑Tooley that:
  • her written application was well written; and
  • Ms Glennon-Tooley presented herself well during the interview and although she provided some good examples, she could provide stronger examples across more of the priority industries of the Department, to show a greater breadth of knowledge as well as providing examples that demonstrated a greater level of initiative than the examples she (Ms Glennon-Tooley) provided.
  1. [47]
    The Department further submitted that the feedback provided to Ms Glennon-Tooley:
  • was based on feedback notes relevant to her and had been prepared following discussions with the panel; and
  • was specific to her application for the purposes of assisting her in understanding potential areas for further focus in future applications and did not going to the details of the merits of Ms Turner's application.
  1. [48]
    The Department also submitted that following the conversation with Ms Hutchinson, Ms Glennon-Tooley sought written feedback from Ms Hutchinson, in response to which Ms Hutchinson confirmed that feedback was not required to be provided in writing, however, Ms Hutchinson provided a further opportunity for Ms Glennon-Tooley to meet with the panel to discuss further feedback; however, no such further feedback was sought.

The panel did not fail to comply with cl 10.3 of the Directive

  1. [49]
    In my view, the panel did not fail to comply with cl 10.3 of the Directive.
  1. [50]
    Even just considering Ms Glennon-Tooley's own submissions, my opinion is that Ms Hutchinson provided feedback to Ms Glennon-Tooley which was consistent with the purpose of cl 10.3 of the Directive. The feedback, as recounted by Ms Glennon-Tooley in her submissions, '… included' her (Ms Glennon-Tooley's) failure to mention a partially completed university project management course and her failure to mention more examples of her using her initiative when asked a question about using initiative. Based on these submissions alone, Ms Glennon-Tooley received specific and constructive feedback from a member of the selection panel sufficient to explain the panel’s recommendation and, as a consequence, the decision.
  1. [51]
    The feedback provided by Ms Hutchinson to Ms Glennon-Tooley met the requirements of the Directive.
  1. [52]
    For these reasons, I am not persuaded that on the basis of the feedback Ms Hutchinson provided, the decision was other than fair and reasonable.

Conclusion

  1. [53]
    The question in this case was whether the panel, in recommending Ms Turner to be appointed to the position over Ms Glennon-Tooley, failed to comply with cl 7.2(b) or cl 10.3 of the Directive.
  1. [54]
    For the reasons I have given, there was no failure by the panel to comply with cl 7.2(b) and cl 10.3 of the Directive. The decision was fair and reasonable.
  1. [55]
    The decision appealed against is confirmed.

Order

  1. [56]
    I make the following order:

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

Footnotes

[1]Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203; (2020) 305 IR 311 ('Morison'), [4]‑[5].

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

[3]Morison (n 1) [6].

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

[5]Industrial Relations Act 2016 s 562C(1)(b).

[6]Industrial Relations Act 2016 s 562C(2).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Glennon-Tooley v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Glennon-Tooley v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 313

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Merrell DP

  • Date:

    11 Aug 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
Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 203
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 203
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

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.