Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Morfett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2022] QIRC 45

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

Morfett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 45

Morfett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 45

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Morfett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 45

PARTIES: 

Morfett, Lisa

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2021/426

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Conversion of casual employment

DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2022

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

Pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision is set aside and substituted with a decision that Ms Morfett's employment is to be converted to permanent

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – casual employment – where the appellant requested to convert their employment to permanent – where the request was denied – where appellant was not converted

LEGISLATION:

Directive 08/20 Casual Employment

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

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

CASES:

Cameron v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 226

Clair v State of Queensland (Department of Public Housing and Works) [2020] QIRC 220

Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170

Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 055

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

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    Ms Lisa Morfett is substantively employed as a casual Administrative Officer pay point AO2 at the Hervey Bay Hospital within the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service (WBHHS) by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (the Respondent). For approximately two years, she has been temporarily employed in various temporary contracts.
  1. [2]
    Pursuant to Directive 08/20 Casual Employment (the Directive), on 11 October 2021 Ms Morfett requested conversion of her employment from causal to permanent.[1]
  1. [3]
    The date Ms Morfett became eligible to have her employment reviewed was 30 October 2021.  As the employer had not made a decision within 28 days of that date, it was taken to have made a deemed decision that Ms Morfett's employment would continue under existing arrangements.
  1. [4]
    Ms Morfett's appeal notice was filed on 14 December 2021 and I am satisfied that it has been filed within 21 days of the date the deemed decision was made.

Appeal Principles

  1. [4]
    Section 562B(3) of the IR Act provides that the appeal is to be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against and that "the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".
  1. [5]
    Findings made in the decision which are reasonably open on the relevant material or evidence before the decision maker, should not be expected to be disturbed on appeal.
  1. [6]
    A Public Service Appeal is not an opportunity for a fresh hearing, but a review of the decision arrived at by the decision maker.
  1. [7]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (IR Act) provides that the Commission may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or

…

  1. (c)
    For another appeal-set the decision aside, and substitute another decision or return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Legislative structure

  1. [8]
    The relevant provisions of the PS Act and the Directive for consideration in this appeal are set out below.
  1. [9]
    The PS Act 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
  1. (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. (3)
    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.

…

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.
  1. (2)
    However, this section does not apply to a non-industrial instrument employee.
  1. (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
  1. (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)
    the end of 2 years after the employee has been continuously employed as a fixed term temporary employee or casual employee in the department; and
  1. (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
  1. (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
  1. (b)
    the total period for which the person has been continuously employed in the department; and
  1. (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
  1. (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. [10]
    Clause 8 of the Directive provides as follows:

8. Decision on review of status

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.

...

Grounds of appeal

  1. [11]
    Ms Morfett submits that her employment should be converted to permanent as
  1. there is a continuing need for Ms Morfett to be converted into the role or a role which is substantially the same, and will be ongoing; and
  2. Ms Morfett meets the merit principle required under section 27 of the Act.
  1. [12]
    Attached to Ms Morfett's appeal notice are play slips that demonstrate that her engagement has been regular and systematic and which she says demonstrates the Respondent's continuing need to employ her in the role.
  1. [13]
    Ms Morfett says that her ongoing engagement in the role since October 2018 demonstrates that she has the ability, aptitude, skills, knowledge and experience necessary to satisfy the merit principle.  Ms Morfett submits that there are no ongoing performance or conduct issues that would call her merit into question.
  1. [14]
    Ms Morfett says that the Respondent's lack of decision represents 'the lack of intelligent justification in all the relevant circumstances'[2] and makes the deemed decision not to convert her from casual to permanent unfair and unreasonable.
  1. [15]
    Ms Morfett asks that the deemed decision be set aside and substituted with a decision to convert her employment to permanent.

Respondent submissions

Ms Morfett's work history

  1. [16]
    WBHHS says that over the past two years, Ms Morfett has been required to work as an AO3 Administration Officer in different positions and roles within various locations, divisions, units and wards within WBHHS
  1. [17]
    Over the two year period examined in the course of the review, Ms Morfett has only been engaged to cover in roles where a) the incumbent position holder has been temporarily absent due to leave requirements or secondment and b) to fill temporarily established positions to meet temporary increase in demand.
  1. [18]
    A schedule of Ms Morfett's employment history is attached to the Respondent's submissions of 4 January 2021.  In its further submissions filed on 27 January 2022, WBHHS describes Ms Morfett's engagements in more detail:

The Appellant was temporarily utilised for forty-seven weeks in either separate positions from Ward Administrator positions within different Wards as well as Administrative Officer for the Renal and Mental Health Units.  In each of these temporary assignments the owner of the permanent positions returned, and the Appellant was no longer required in that role.

  • The Appellant was temporarily utilised for a total of fourteen weeks in various positions with varying hours to cover 'Backfill – Secondment' where the permanent owners of the positions were temporarily on secondment to other positions (such as the temporary COVID vaccination clinic) within WBHHS.
  • The Appellant was temporarily utilised for a total of twenty-four weeks in various positions with varying hours to cover 'Backfill – Other leave' such as emergent or planned leave, short or longer term. This could include Sick leave, Q Super, WorkCover, Long service leave, Maternity leave, Recreational leave, Special discretionary leave (pandemic) and Special Leave.
  • The Appellant was temporarily utilised for a total of nine weeks in various positions with varying hours to cover 'Backfill – Long Term Leave' such as long service and/or recreation leave.

The Appellant has more recently been employed under temporary contracts for the majority of their temporary assignments (54 weeks) have been in an unfunded position within the temporary vaccination clinic with varying shifts dependent on the operational requirements.  These temporary unfunded positions are in direct response to the unprecedented and genuine operational requirements experienced over the last two years.

  1. [19]
    WBHHS says that Ms Morfett is currently engaged as a temporary employee to backfill a permanent AO3 Ward Administrator who is currently on secondment and at the time of submissions was expected to return to her position on 25 January 2022.

Workforce strategy of WBHHS

  1. [20]
    WBHHS says that it has a 'legitimate need for the use of casual and temporary employees within Administration Services of Hervey Bay Hospital' and that this is part of a strategy to ensure 'resourcing across a 24/7 roster' to allow for leave arrangements.
  1. [21]
    WBHHS says that it employs a small pool of casual staff to backfill emergent leave and to engage in fixed term temporary contracts as required to backfill other forms of planned leave or secondments.
  1. [22]
    Converting Ms Morfett to permanent will impact on the workforce strategy as Ms Morfett 'sits against a casual position which is unfunded' and there is no budget for a permanent position.
  1. [23]
    Depending on the timing of recreation and other leave requests, the requirement to backfill substantive Full-Time Equivalent positions (FTE) is variable.   If Ms Morfett is made permanent and there are no substantive FTEs on leave, the actual establishment would be higher than the budgeted establishment. This would result in actual costs being higher than budgeted costs and a labour expenditure budget overspend.
  1. [24]
    WBHHS has converted numerous employees who have made an application for conversion and have met the criteria under the relevant Directives.  In this case, Ms Morfett is required for a causal on-call role in accordance with the workforce strategy or temporary engagements for the operational service.

'Deemed' decision

  1. [25]
    Due to the unprecedented workloads arising from the COVID19 mandatory vaccination roll out for staff across Queensland Health, resources to respond to conversion reviews have been severely limited and therefore some timeframes have not been able to be achieved. Ms Morfett's review was commenced but was unable to be finalised in the required timeframe.

Merit

  1. [26]
    There is no dispute that Ms Morfett satisfies the merit requirement.

Continuing need

  1. [27]
    WBHHS says that it is likely that there will be a continuing need to engage Ms Morfett but that that continuing need is based on operational and workforce planning which supports employment continuing on a casual and/or fixed term temporary basis when required.
  1. [28]
    Ms Morfett's hours vary from week to week depending on service requirements and there have been small periods where Ms Morfett has not been required.
  1. [29]
    Workforce planning is undertaken for each area of the service, a budget build developed and submitted, and funding allocated based on the plan.  Rostering is done according to the workforce plan and requires a number of casual and temporary employees to ensure workforce flexibility and continuity.  Converting Ms Morfett to permanent would have the effect of removing workforce and rostering flexibility, create inefficiencies and would be contrary to s 98 of the PS Act which requires a Chief Executive to manager their department in a way that promotes the 'effective, efficient and appropriate management of resources'.
  1. [30]
    WBHHS points to the decision of Dwyer IC in Cameron v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 226 ('Cameron') with regard to ongoing need:

[27] The references to 'conceding' that work is ongoing and that are no merit concerns appear to suggest that the reliance on genuine operational reasons is somehow at odds with these conclusions.  It is not. The structure of both the PS Act and the Directive is such that even where all other mandatory considerations and criteria fall in favour of a candidate for conversion, it may still be refused in the presence of genuine operational reasons.

  1. [31]
    With further reference to Cameron, WBHHS says that in that matter the appeal was dismissed where the circumstances were effectively the same as Ms Morfett's and Dwyer IC said

[25] The circumstances cited by the Department in the decision especially with respect to the need to maintain the availability of a flexible workforce on a 24 hours per day/7 days per week basis is a compelling and genuine operational requirement …

[26] On the whole I am satisfied that the need to have flexibility around the availability of employees places a degree of pressure on the Department to balance its workforce between causal and permanent in a manner that fits within a relatively restricted budget. In the circumstances I am satisfied the Department has adequately identified genuine operational requirements that preclude Mr Cameron's conversion on this occasion.

Genuine Operational Requirements

  1. [32]
    WBHHS says that Ms Morfett is not engaged to fill a single role, but rather is engaged to backfill various people in various roster roles at variable times depending on the service requirements on each occasion.
  1. [33]
    WBHHS points to the circumstances surrounding Ms Morfett's employment and says that she is employed on ad hoc shifts to cover emergent leave and on temporary engagements to cover planned leave, secondments and short term vacancies while recruitment is undertaken.  In each of these cases, the substantive employee returns to their role.  With reference to Clair v State of Queensland (Department of Public Housing and Works) [2020] QIRC 220, the Respondent says that there is no need for two people to be engaged to perform the same work at the same time and converting Ms Morfett to permanent would create this situation.
  1. [34]
    With regard to the periods of non-engagement in Ms Morfett's employment history, WBHHS says that while the breaks in engagement were not of a length that would disqualify her from consideration under the Directive, they do demonstrate that conversion to permanent would impact the Respondent's ability to manage staffing effectively in periods where Ms Morfett is not required.
  1. [35]
    There is no definition for the phrase 'genuine operational requirements' in the Directive or the relevant legislation.  The Respondent relies on the case of Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 where they state Merrell DP considered 'genuine' to mean 'authentic' and also addressed the legislative responsibilities of chief executives under s 98 of the PS Act as previously discussed.

The Directive

  1. [36]
    WBHHS says that the stated purpose of the Directive is twofold: it establishes employment on tenure is the default basis of employment in the public service, excluding non-industrial instrument employees and sets out the circumstances where employment on tenure is not viable and appropriate.  Clause 5.2 of the Directive, and s 148(2) of the PS Act set out situations where the use of tenured employment is generally not viable and appropriate and includes circumstances in which Ms Morfett has been engaged, such as 'backfilling tenure or fixed term temporary staff on short-term emergent leave'.

Employment Security Policy

  1. [37]
    WBHHS says that the Directive states that it gives 'full effect to the Government's employment security policy'.[3]
  1. [38]
    The Employment Security Policy outlines the government's commitment to permanent employment where possible, however the policy also sets out a commitment to 'developing and maintain a responsive, impartial and efficient government workforce' and 'with workforce planning, career planning and skills development will ensure that the government workforce has the flexibility and mobility to meet future needs' and 'Agencies are encouraged to utilise workforce planning and management strategies to assist in determining the appropriate workforce mix for current and future needs.'[4]
  1. [39]
    WBHHS also refers to the Financial Accountability Act 2009 (Qld), the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011, and the Public Service Act 2008, and says that all underpin the requirements of chief executives to manage resources in efficient, effective, economical and value for money manner.

Managerial prerogative

  1. [40]
    WBHHS says that there is a 'long line of authority' recognising the general principle that an Industrial Tribunal ought not interfere with the right of management to manage its business, unless the employer is seeking something from employees which is unjust or unreasonable.

Ms Morfett's submissions in reply

  1. [41]
    Ms Morfett says that stating that a position is 'unfunded' as a basis for non-conversion is nonsensical.  The Directive does not require there to be a 'funded' position to allow for conversion.  The decision in Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 055 reaffirms this and notes that a conversion to permanent will often require the creation of a new position.
  1. [42]
    Ms Morfett's work history demonstrates that she is being engaged in an ongoing way and therefore funding is already being used to pay her has a casual with the respective loading.
  1. [43]
    Ms Morfett says that whilst a small casual pool is reasonably necessary for the proper management of the Hospital and Health Service, a permanent workforce allows for a more structured and organised workforce, which in turn makes budgeting and expenditure more predictable and reduces the potential for labour expenditure budget overspend.
  1. [44]
    With regard to the Respondent's submissions regarding the decision in the matter of Cameron (see above [30], [31]), Ms Morfett says that that decision is 'at odds with other decisions made by the Commission'.[5]
  1. [45]
    Ms Morfett says that the phrase 'genuine operational requirements' is not defined in either the PS Act or the Directive.  With reference to term included in the PS Act and the Directive, 'Must decide to offer to convert', Ms Morfett says that the language clearly favours conversion in the majority of conversion applications where the requisite criteria are met.
  1. [46]
    Ms Morfett says that it is not a question of whether it was fair and reasonable to initially engage her on a casual basis, but whether it was fair and reasonable, in consideration of the intent and purpose of the PS Act and the Directives as a whole, for Ms Morfett to continue to be engaged as a casual for more than two years.
  1. [47]
    Ms Morfett says that the Respondent has provided no evidence to demonstrate that removing her from the 'casual and temporary pool' will impact their workforce strategy as claimed.  The Respondent has merely stated that converting Ms Morfett's employment to permanent would 'create inefficiencies'.
  1. [48]
    Ms Morfett has consistently worked an average of 62.3 hours per fortnight and her hours cannot be said to be erratic or unpredictable. Rather, Ms Morfett's hours have been regular and systematic in line with the requirements of the Directive.
  1. [49]
    Ms Morfett agrees with the Respondent's submission that her employment has included both casual and temporary engagements. Ms Morfett's employment reflects cl 11 of the Directive which includes in the definition of continuous employment, 'in a combination of causal employment on a regular and systematic basis and continuous fixed term temporary employment'.
  1. [50]
    With reference to the Respondent's argument at [33] above, Ms Morfett says that the decision in Clair dealt with the secondment of one employee backfilling another employee and that this is not the situation in her case where she is filling a number of different roles.  In any case, Ms Morfett points to cl 5.3 of the Directive which states:

Employment on tenure may be viable or appropriate if a person is required to be employed for a purpose mentioned in clause 5.2, such as covering gaps in various work rosters, on a regular and systematic basis.

  1. [51]
    Ms Morfett says that it is unsurprising that various statutory frameworks require the chief executive to exercise fiscal responsibility. The submissions of the Respondent referencing various legislation and policy to this effect do not establish facts relevant, or particularities sufficient enough for the Commission to determine whether the genuine operational requirements relied upon by the Respondent were in fact 'genuine' enough to determine that the decision was fair and reasonable.[6]

Consideration

  1. [52]
    Ms Morfett meets the merit requirement for conversion and it has been established that there is a continuing need for her to be employed.
  1. [53]
    I note that while WBHHS says that there have been periods where Ms Morfett has not been required to be employed, the work history provided to me would appear to indicate that she has been employed every week over the two year review period with very few exceptions.  Should Ms Morfett be converted to permanent, there will be times where she would take leave which would likely be commensurate to the times of non-engagement in her work history.
  1. [54]
    Ms Morfett's employment history demonstrates a continuing need for her to be employed. A review of her employment history shows that the number of hours for which she is employed in each week has varied from a low of 4 hours in the week to a high of 60.5.  This has taken place in the context of the health service operating on a 24/7 basis. Whether Ms Morfett is fulfilling a temporary or casual position, the roster enables a variance of hours to be worked on a fortnightly basis according to the needs of the Respondent.
  1. [55]
    The employment history also demonstrates that Ms Morfett has the capacity to transfer her skills into a range of different positions and roles.  The submissions made referring to Clair are not applicable in Ms Morfett's circumstances as she is not replacing one particular employee who will be returning to their role.
  1. [56]
    That Ms Morfett has been engaged in such a consistent way to backfill employees on leave or secondment over a period of two years is a strong indication that employees will continue to be absent for various reasons and there will continue to be need for Ms Morfett to be employed to perform the types of roles she has undertaken in that time.
  1. [57]
    While s 148(2) of the PS Act lists purposes for employment which indicate that employment on tenure may not be viable or appropriate, s 148(3) says that employment on tenure may be viable or appropriate

if a person is required to be employed for a mentioned in s 148(2) on a frequent or regular basis.  Ms Morfett's employment history demonstrates that while employed for purposes set out in s 148(2), she has done so on a frequent and regular basis.

  1. [58]
    I note the Respondent's submissions that Ms Morfett's role is 'unfunded' and that there is no permanent FTE to enable her conversion of employment.  It has been established in decisions of the Commission that conversion to permanent does not require there to be a vacancy or budgeted FTE.  The conversion of an employee to permanent from casual will often involve the creation of a new permanent position and this is to be expected where the requisite criteria are met.[7] 
  1. [59]
    The legislation and Directive are not written in a way that envisages that an employee will only be successful in a request for conversion if there is a vacancy available for them to be appointed to.
  1. [60]
    The Respondent rightly states that the Chief Executive is required to work within financial management and performance accountability frameworks. Section 25 of the PS Act sets out the management and employment principles and relevantly states
  1. (1)
    Public service management is to be directed towards—
  1. (a)
    Providing responsive, effective and efficient services to the community and Government; and

…

  1. (e)
    managing public resources efficiently, responsibly and in a fully accountable way; and
  1. (2)
    Public service employment is to be directed towards promoting –

…

  1. (d)
    employment on tenure as the default basis of employment for employees in the public service other than for non-industrial instrument employees.
  1. [61]
    Having reviewed all of the submissions and the material before me, I am unable to find that the Respondent have articulated with any specificity why it is that employing Ms Morfett on a permanent basis will result in the Chief Executive not managing public resources in an efficient, responsible or fully accountable way.
  1. [62]
    Ms Morfett has been engaged by the Respondent to work in a continuing way for over two years.  There is no dispute that there is a continuing need for her to undertake employment with the Respondent.  I do not find that the genuine operational requirements relied upon by the Respondent serve to displace the principle that employment on tenure is the default basis of employment in the public service.
  1. [63]
    I accept the Respondent's submission that there is a legitimate need to maintain a small pool of casual and temporary staff.  But having reviewed all of the submissions, I do not find that the Respondent has demonstrated sufficient genuine operational reasons why Ms Morfett should remain a part of that 'small pool'.
  1. [64]
    Pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision is set aside and substituted with a decision that Ms Morfett's employment is to be converted to permanent.

Footnotes

[1] Attachment to Appeal notice filed 14 December 2021.

[2] Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170, [207].

[3] Cls 4.1.

[4] Employment Security Policy, Department of Premier and Cabinet, [2], [3] and cl 4.1 of Directive.

[5] Ms Morfett lists three cases in support of her argument: Woodhouse v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 290; Varghesekutty v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 319; Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 055.

[6] Cameron v State of Queensland (2021) QIRC 226, [24].

[7] Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 055.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Morfett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Morfett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 45

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    18 Feb 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
Cameron v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 226
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 226
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 226
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 226
Clair v State of Queensland (Department of Housing and Public Works) [2020] QIRC 220
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 220
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 220
Gilmour v Waddell [2019] QSC 170
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 170
Kelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 55
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 55
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 55
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 55
Cite 4 - [2021] QIRC 55
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
Varghesekutty v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 319
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 319
Woodhouse v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 290
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 290

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Stewart v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 1031 citation
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.