Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Watson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2022] QIRC 477

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

Watson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 477

Watson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2022] QIRC 477

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Watson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 477

PARTIES:

Watson, Belinda

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/715

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Conversion of casual employment

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2022

MEMBER:

Dwyer IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SERVICE – appeal – casual employment – application for permanent employment – genuine operational requirements – decision not to convert – whether decision was fair and reasonable – decision appealed against confirmed

LEGISLATION:

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

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

Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment

CASES:

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

Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 436

Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319

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

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

O'Neill v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 388

Power v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation) [2021] QIRC 053

Horne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 359

Newman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 218

Walters v State of Queensland [2021] QIRC 219

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

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    Ms Belinda Watson ('Ms Watson') is substantively employed as a casual Administration Officer (AO2) at the Bundaberg Hospital within the Wide Bay Hospital and Health Service ('the department'). Notwithstanding her substantive role is as a casual employee, Ms Watson has been engaged consistently throughout the two years of her employment on temporary engagements to backfill roles.
  1. [2]
    On 26 July 2022, Ms Watson requested a review of her employment status for consideration of conversion to permanent employment. By letter, dated 11 August 2022, Mr Lewczuk informed Ms Watson she would remain as a casual Administration Officer in the casual pool, undertaking fixed term temporary contracts ('the decision').
  1. [3]
    The decision provided two key grounds for refusing the requested conversion, namely non-availability of substantially similar role and genuine operational requirements. The decision relevantly provides:

…I have considered based on previous patterns of engagement, that it is likely there will be a continuing need to engage you on a contingent basis either as a casual or as a temporary employee in accordance with the circumstances outlined in section 148(2) of the PS Act to enable WBHHS to fulfil its service provision requirements however, I am unable to be certain in regards to the number of hours available to be offered to you at any time.

I have also considered whether there is a continuing need to employ you not only in your current role but another role that is substantially the same. There are no other roles within the WBHHS that are substantially the same as the role in which you are currently engaged. The position of Administration Officer within Corporate Records is a unique role and there are no other positions with similar capability requirements.

And then further:

As Chief Executive, I am required to manage and resource the full-time equivalent (FTE) establishment taking into account workforce planning considerations, the operational needs of the service and ensuring financial sustainability as outlined within section 98 of the PS Act and within the current Service Delivery Agreement for WBHHS.

The nature of your engagements aligns with the workforce strategy for your service area, ensuring flexibility and an appropriate workforce mix. The service area in which you are engaged currently has a set budgeted establishment, and all permanent positions are currently filled. You are currently backfilling the position of a permanent incumbent who has temporarily reduced their hours and will return to their full-time position once this arrangement ends…

…Upon a review of the circumstances of your engagements as outlined above, I find it is neither viable nor appropriate in this case to convert to permanent having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the WBHHS.

  1. [4]
    In response to the decision, Ms Watson filed an Appeal Notice on 24 August 2022. In her appeal, she contends that the decision is unfair and unreasonable because:
  1. (a)
    The decision does not provide details of the process engaged in by the decision maker to identify any other roles that would be substantially the same, any roles that were rejected because they were not considered to be substantially the same, or roles that were rejected on the erroneous basis of them not being available;
  1. (b)
    The decision does not provide detail or material facts about the actual workforce needs of the service or why they prevent her conversion to permanent employment; and
  1. (c)
    She believes the department are contending she cannot be converted to permanent employment because she is in a relief pool, which is contrary to the requirement that the default basis is to be employed on a permanent basis.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [5]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the Commission may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. (b)
    …
  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.

 Nature of appeal

  1. [6]
    Chapter 11 of the IR Act provides the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission with jurisdiction to deal with appeals under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ('the PS Act'). 
  1. [7]
    Under Chapter 11 of the IR Act, the role of the Commission is to review the decision appealed against.[1] The IR Act does not define the term 'review'. The term 'review' will take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[2]
  1. [8]
    An appeal under Chapter 11, of the IR Act is not a rehearing of the matter,[3] but rather, it is a review of the decision and the decision-making process.[4] The purpose of such an appeal is to have the Commission decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[5]
  1. [9]
    The issue for my determination in the matter before me, is whether the decision to refuse to convert Mrs Watson's casual employment, including the adequacy of the reasons given, was fair and reasonable.[6]

Relevant sections of the PS Act and Directive

  1. [10]
    The relevant provisions of the PS Act and the applicable Directive 09/20 Fixed term temporary employment ('the Directive') for consideration in this appeal are set out below.[7]
  1. [11]
    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. [12]
    Clause 4 of the directive outlines the principles as follows:

4.1  Section 25(2) of the PS Act provides that employment on tenure is the default basis of employment in the public service, excluding non-industrial instrument employees. This section gives full effect to the government’s employment security policy.

…

4.5  Under the Human Rights Act 2019 decision makers have an obligation to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights, and when making a decision under this directive, to give proper consideration to human rights.

  1. [13]
    Clause 8 of the Directive relevantly provides:

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 employee to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same
  • the merit of the casual 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.

(Emphasis added)

Submissions of the parties

  1. [14]
    The parties filed written submissions in accordance with a Directions Order dated 25 August 2022. The submissions of both parties primarily relate to the continuing need, and the genuine operational requirements of the role.

Submissions of the Department

  1. [15]
    The department submits Ms Watson has been engaged in temporary contracts at level or in higher duties backfill, planned and unplanned leave, temporary reduction of hours of a substantive employee and to perform work on a particular project or purpose that has a known end date. The department notes the hours of Ms Watson's work have been variable depending on service needs and the number of hours of leave taken by permanent employees.
  1. [16]
    The department submits in each case, a substantive incumbent has returned to their position and Ms Watson is no longer required in that position until the next period of backfill is required, or the substantive incumbent has an approved agreement to temporarily reduce their hours and will return to their substantive full-time hours by a known end date.
  1. [17]
    The department provides the following submissions in relation to continuing need:
  1. The Appellant raises concern that the decision fails to provide any details of the process engaged in by the decision maker to identify any other roles that would be substantially the same, any roles that were rejected because they were considered not to be substantially the same or roles that were rejected on the erroneous basis of them being not available.
  1. The Directive provides that “when deciding whether to offer permanent employment under section 149A or 149B, a chief executive must consider the criteria in section 149A(2)” including “whether there is a continuing need for the person to be employed in the role, or a role which is substantially the same”.
  1. Having regard to the requirements of the Directive, the Respondent undertakes a review of all established permanent positions and where there are positions available, consideration is given to whether or not the role is substantially the same. The Respondent has confirmed within the outcome letter that consideration was given to employing the Appellant in their current role as well as any roles that are substantially the same however that there were no other roles that were substantially the same as the role the Appellant was engaged in.
  1. Over the two years of the Appellant’s employment history as outlined in “WB 01”, it is noted the Appellant has not been engaged in the same position. The Appellant has been engaged as a casual Administration Officer (AO2) engaged in stand-alone shifts to backfill emergent leave, has been engaged in temporary contracts at level or in higher duties backfill, planned and unplanned leave, to backfill the temporary reduction of hours of a substantive employee, and to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date. There is no continuing need to engage the Appellant in these roles as in each case a substantive incumbent returns to their position and the Appellant is no longer required in that position until another period of backfill is required.
  1. There is a legitimate and genuine need for the use of casual and temporary employees as a contingent workforce within Administration Services at the Bundaberg Hospital. It is a workforce strategy utilised to ensure resourcing across a 24/7 roster allowing for the backfill of planned and unplanned leave of permanent employees. The strategy includes a fixed permanent establishment of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees attached to a roster that aligns to the operational requirements of the various services, and a contingent workforce of casual staff to backfill emergent leave and of which can be engaged in fixed term temporary contracts as needed to backfill other forms of planned leave, to meet temporary increases in demand, or to temporarily fill positions during recruitment cycles. Depending on the timing of recreation or other leave requests, the requirement to backfill substantive FTEs is variable and the use of a contingent workforce to manage fluctuations in staffing needs is critical to ensuring that the required level of services are able to be delivered across the various permanent shifts.
  1. [18]
    The department relies on the decision of Cameron v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('Cameron')[8] and submits that the circumstances of needing to have flexibility around the availability of employees, and the consideration of genuine operational requirements are analogous in Cameron and in this appeal.
  1. [19]
    The department submits whilst the legislative framework establishes that employment on tenure is the default basis for employment in Queensland, it also envisages a need for there to be some use of temporary and casual employment.[9]
  1. [20]
    The department, therefore, concludes that they have evidenced genuine operational requirements for not converting Ms Watson. Her engagements fall within the confines of the examples in s 148(2) of the PS Act, and the department subsequently submits the decision should be confirmed.

Submissions of Ms Watson

  1. [21]
    Ms Watson submits she has been employed since 29 June 2020 and meets the merit requirement in accordance with the PS Act.
  1. [22]
    Ms Watson submits that the reasons provided in the decision of the department are not adequate. Citing Power v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation)[10] she contends that no analysis has been provided to her of any details of other roles considered and why some may have been rejected in accordance with the requirements in 27B(a) and (b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).
  1. [23]
    Ms Watson submits her employment records show she has worked in corporate records for a majority of her past two years with the department. She subsequently submits that there is an ongoing need for her to work within the area or at a minimum, be a permanent employee in the relief pool. 
  1. [24]
    Ms Watson submits that the departments submission that there is no 'continuing need' for her employment is inconsistent with her historical circumstances. She submits there is a continuing need for her to perform work in a role that is the same or substantially the same.
  1. [25]
    Ms Watson cites decisions of this commission and submits that similar reasoning in those decisions failed to provide sufficient material facts or information relied on by the decision maker in coming to that decision.[11]
  1. [26]
    Ms Watson submits that the department's reliance on Cameron is distinguished in this case, because she submits Cameron relied on the employee being casual and thus not needing to be backfilled in casual pool. Whilst, Ms Watson submits she has been employed on a temporary basis for years and does not take leave requiring backfill.
  1. [27]
    Ms Watson closes her submissions by submitting that if the decision is found to be unfair and unreasonable, she seeks a substituted decision to convert her to a permanent AO3 Administration Officer. 

Consideration

Adequacy of reasons

  1. [28]
    Ms Watson’s criticism of the department’s failure to provide sufficient details of roles considered to which to appoint her has some merit. The deficit Ms Watson complains of could easily have been overcome by the simple addition of another sentence to the decision setting out where the decision maker had looked and what (if any) roles were considered but discounted, and if so, why.
  1. [29]
    Had this been the only matter upon which the refusal to convert was based, it would have been my inclination to set the decision aside and send the matter back for further consideration, with a direction to properly particularise the decision. But the second limb of the department’s decision is compelling and ultimately undermines the utility of any reconsideration.

Genuine operational requirements 

  1. [30]
    Deputy President Merrell held in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women):[12]

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

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

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

…

The phrase '... genuine operational requirements of the department' in s 149C(4A)(a) and in cl 6.2(a) of the Directive, construed in context, would at least include whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department, to appoint an employee, who has been assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level in the department for the requisite period of time, to '...the position at the higher classification level.'

(Emphasis added)

  1. [31]
    It must be said that the portion of the decision purporting to explain the genuine operational requirements is a masterclass in ‘management-speak’. While adequate reasons are essential to a fair decision, there is a serious danger that unfairness will arise where reasons are expressed in a way that impedes understanding. I consider that an overly verbose or complex decision has the very real potential to produce unfairness. A reason that cannot be plainly understood is just as unfair as inadequate reasons.
  1. [32]
    While it is already set it out above, the portion of the decision dealing with genuine operational requirements is worth revisiting:

As Chief Executive, I am required to manage and resource the full-time equivalent (FTE) establishment taking into account workforce planning considerations, the operational needs of the service and ensuring financial sustainability as outlined within section 98 of the PS Act and within the current Service Delivery Agreement for WBHHS.

The nature of your engagements aligns with the workforce strategy for your service area, ensuring flexibility and an appropriate workforce mix. The service area in which you are engaged currently has a set budgeted establishment, and all permanent positions are currently filled. You are currently backfilling the position of a permanent incumbent who has temporarily reduced their hours and will return to their full-time position once this arrangement ends…

…Upon a review of the circumstances of your engagements as outlined above, I find it is neither viable nor appropriate in this case to convert to permanent having regard to the genuine operational requirements of the WBHHS.

  1. [33]
    Despite the use of virtual code words and other flourishes, I am satisfied the reasons for decision sought to be conveyed by the decision maker can be understood and are adequate. What is ultimately clear from the decision is that the department requires a flexible workforce to backfill, there are no permanent positions currently available and, most importantly, there is no budget capacity for a new permanent position.
  1. [34]
    The lack of an available position is not, of itself, a ground to refuse conversion (though it is not an irrelevant consideration either). But a lack of funding is a critical consideration when evaluating whether genuine operational requirements preclude conversion.
  1. [35]
    In the decision of Cameron, I made the following observations:[13]

Statutory frameworks and ‘motherhood’ statements about financial responsibility do not represent the facts necessary to demonstrate genuine operational requirements. In my view, for a decision to properly inform a candidate, a decision maker relying on genuine operational requirements to refuse conversion must cite (with some particularity) the operational requirements.

…

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 casual and permanent in a manner that fits within a relatively restricted budget. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Department has adequately identified genuine operational requirements that preclude Mr Cameron’s conversion on this occasion.

For completeness I add that the tone of Mr Cameron’s submissions suggest that the Department’s decision is somehow inconsistent. The references to ‘conceding’ that work is ongoing and that there 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 requirements.       

  1. [36]
    While there is an obvious distinction between the status of Mr Cameron (a casual) and Ms Watson (a substantive casual serving in rolling temporary appointments) the essence of their circumstances is the same i.e. they are each essential to their department’s need to have flexible personnel available to backfill roles either wholly or partially vacated by incumbents from time to time, all within the context of a set budget. In those circumstances I consider the sentiments expressed in Cameron are equally applicable here.
  1. [37]
    Further, notwithstanding I note that the department produces no detailed evidence of their 'set budgeted establishment' ('budget') that purportedly prevents the creation of a permanent role for Ms Watson, I am equally mindful that an overly intense consideration of financial data would risk the review of the decision expanding into a consideration of its merits which goes beyond the jurisdiction granted to the Commission in these appeals.[14]
  1. [38]
    I consider there are sufficient particulars in the decision to explain the genuine operational requirements i.e. the need to maintain a flexible pool of workers (be they casual or temporary) within a restricted budget.  I note also that there was no direct or clear challenge by Ms Watson to the department’s contentions about its budget restrictions. 
  1. [39]
    I have previously expressed a view that it is prudent to exercise caution in granting conversions in these appeals. In the decision of Gatla I recently observed:[15]

As a general rule caution ought to be exercised by this Commission when making decisions to convert employees to permanent employment or to order appointment to a  higher classification. The nature of these appeals and the manner in which they are ordinarily conducted is such that, despite submissions from the parties, it is often difficult to fully appreciate the operational setting in which the appeal is being determined. Care must be taken to ensure conversions and appointments do not produce unsustainable outcomes.

  1. [40]
    I maintain this view. While I can understand Ms Watson’s frustration at the seemingly convenient rejection of her application for conversion on the basis of a simple assertion of genuine operational requirements, I am not prepared to put that assertion aside in the absence of some compelling contradiction. In those circumstances I conclude that the decision is fair and reasonable.
  1. [41]
    I would add in conclusion that Ms Watson should not feel discouraged by this outcome. Her consistent employment over a two year period is a compelling factor in her argument for conversion. The PS Act and the Directive each allow for further requests for conversion to be made at designated intervals. Without putting a figure on it, and consistent with my conclusion in Gatla, I would consider Ms Watson’s ongoing continuous service will eventually outweigh all considerations against her conversion.   

Order

  1. [42]
    In the circumstances I make the following order:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

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

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

[3] Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319, 5.

[4] Ibid.

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

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

[7] Notwithstanding Ms Watson holds a substantive casual position, it appears that all but a few days of her two years of employment have been pursuant to temporary engagements. See employment history attached to both parties submissions.

[8] [2021] QIRC 226.

[9] O'Neill v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 388 [54].

[10] [2021] QIRC 053 [36]-[37].

[11] Horne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 359; Newman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 218; Walters v State of Queensland [2021] QIRC 219.

[12] [2020] QIRC 203, [37]-[40]. 

[13] Cameron v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 226, [23]-[27].

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

[15] Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 436, [34]-[35].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Watson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Watson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 477

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Dwyer IC

  • Date:

    07 Dec 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] HCA 10
Cite 2 - [1995] HCA 10
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
Gatla v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 436
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 436
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 436
Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QSC 319
Cite 2 - [2018] QSC 319
Horne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 359
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 359
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 359
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
Newman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 218
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 218
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 218
O'Neill v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 388
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 388
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 388
Page v Thompson [2014] QSC 252
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QSC 252
Cite 2 - [2014] QSC 252
Power v State of Queensland (Department of State Development, Tourism and Innovation) [2021] QIRC 53
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 53
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 53
Walters v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 219
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 219
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 219

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.