Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Kantor v State of Queensland (Department of Education) - [2022] QIRC 71

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

Kantor v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2022] QIRC 71

Kantor v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2022] QIRC 71

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Kantor v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 071

PARTIES:

Kantor, Sandralee

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Education)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2021/419

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Transfer Decision

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2022

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against transfer decision – where appellant made a request for transfer – where respondent decided not to transfer the appellant – where there were no suitable vacancies – whether respondent appropriately considered roles and preferences – whether respondent considered all relevant factors – whether decision fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 451, s 562B, s 562C, s 564

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 194

Department of Education Teacher Transfer Guidelines s 3, s 9, s 10

CASES:

Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

Reasons for Decision

Background

  1. [1]
    Miss Sandralee Kantor (the Appellant) is employed as an "Experienced Senior Teacher, Classroom Teaching - Stream 1" at Redbank Plains State High School (SHS) by the Department of Education, State of Queensland (the Department; the Respondent).[1]
  1. [2]
    On 13 October 2021, Miss Kantor requested a review of a decision to not grant her request for transfer from Redbank Plains SHS.[2]
  1. [3]
    On 6 December 2021, Mr Chris Hodgson (Director, Human Resource Business Partnering, Metropolitan Region) on behalf of the Department advised Miss Kantor, "I have accepted the panel's[3] recommendation and wish to advise that the decision not to grant your transfer request has been dismissed."[4] Notwithstanding, the reasons attached to the 6 December 2021 correspondence indicate Mr Hodgson had instead upheld the original decision to not grant Miss Kantor's request.[5] That correspondence constitutes the decision subject of this appeal (the Decision).
  1. [4]
    On 7 December 2021, Miss Kantor filed a Form 89 Appeal Notice with the Industrial Registry.

Jurisdiction

The decision subject of this appeal

  1. [5]
    On p 3 of the Appeal Notice, Miss Kantor identifies the type of decision being appealed:

I am appealing a fair treatment decision and I have used my employer's individual employee grievances process before lodging this appeal.

  1. [6]
    Section 194 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) (the PS Act) identifies the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Section 194(1)(eb) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against "a decision a public service employee believes is unfair and unreasonable (a fair treatment decision)".
  1. [7]
    On that basis, I am satisfied the Decision is appealable.

Timeframe for appeal

  1. [8]
    Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (the IR Act) requires that an appeal be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given. That is the relevant inquiry with respect to timeframes. I note that despite the question posed in the Appeal Notice regarding when the decision was received.
  1. [9]
    The Decision was given on 6 December 2021 and the Appeal Notice was filed on 7 December 2021. Therefore, I am satisfied the Appeal Notice was filed by Miss Kantor within the required timeframe.

What decisions can the Commission make?

  1. [10]
    Section 562C of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:
  1. confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision-maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate; or
  1. set the decision aside and substitute another decision.

Consideration

Appeal principles

  1. [11]
    Section 562B(2)-(3) of the IR Act provides that the appeal is decided by reviewing the decision appealed against "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".
  1. [12]
    The appeal is not conducted by way of re–hearing, but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the Respondent and the associated decision–making process.
  1. [13]
    Findings made by the Respondent, which are reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal.  Even so, in reviewing the decision appealed against, the Commission may allow other evidence to be taken into account.
  1. [14]
    The relevant principles in considering whether a decision is 'unreasonable' were enunciated by Ryan J in Gilmour v Waddell & Ors (emphasis added, citations removed):[6]

The focus of a review of the reasonableness, or unreasonableness, of a decision is on whether the decision is so unreasonable that it lacks intelligent justification in all of the relevant circumstances.

The legal standard of unreasonableness is to be considered by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute conferring the power.

A court considering an argument that a decision is unreasonable is not undertaking a merits review. If a decision may be reasonably justified, then it is not an unreasonable decision, even if a reviewing court might disagree with it.

The pluarity in Li said:

… when something is to be done within the discretion of an authority, it is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice. That is what is meant by ‘according to law’. It is to be legal and regular, not vague and fanciful …

… there is an area within which a decision-maker has a genuinely free discretion. That area resides within the bounds of legal reasonableness. The courts are conscious of not exceeding their supervisory role by undertaking a review of the merits of an exercise of discretionary power. Properly applied, a standard of legal reasonableness does not involve substituting a court’s view as to how a discretion should be applied for that of a decision-maker …

… it is necessary to look to the scope and purpose of the statute conferring the discretionary power and its real object … The legal standard of reasonableness must be the standard indicated by the true construction of the statute. It is necessary to construe the statute because the question to which the standard of reasonableness is addressed is whether the statutory power has been abused.

… Unreasonableness is a conclusion which may be applied to a decision which lacks an evidence and intelligible justification.

Submissions

  1. [15]
    In accordance with the Directions Order issued on 8 December 2021, the parties filed written submissions.
  1. [16]
    Pursuant to s 451(1) of the IR Act, no hearing was conducted in deciding this appeal.  The matter was decided on the papers.
  1. [17]
    I have carefully considered all submissions and annexed materials but have determined not to approach the writing of this decision by summarising the entirety of those materials. My focus is on determining whether the Decision appealed against is fair and reasonable so I will instead refer only to the parties' key positions in my consideration of each question to be decided.

Appeal grounds 

  1. [18]
    Broadly, Miss Kantor contends the Decision is not fair and reasonable because the review process has not been equitable, the Department has not provided full disclosure and some factors have been overlooked.[7]
  1. [19]
    Miss Kantor specifically alleges the Department:[8]
  • narrowly focused on Miss Kantor's role as a Drama Teacher;
  • erroneously identified and restricted Miss Kantor's preferences;
  • has not disclosed whether employees with fewer points than Miss Kantor have secured "an English, Humanities position in any inner Brisbane school";
  • has not disclosed why new graduates are being offered contracts at inner-city schools over permanent staff; and
  • has overlooked several factors in processing the transfer application.
  1. [20]
    The Respondent's preliminary position is that Miss Kantor was not eligible to apply for a transfer and on that basis, the appeal should be dismissed. I will consider that argument first before addressing each of the appeal grounds in turn.

Eligibility for transfer

  1. [21]
    The Department of Education's Teacher Transfer Guidelines (the Guidelines) enables teachers to request a transfer subject to meeting minimum service requirements and eligibility criteria,[9] stipulated as follows (emphasis added):

9.1 Eligibility criteria

To be eligible to apply for a transfer, teachers are required to:

  • be employed on a permanent basis (either full time or part time)
  • have completed the specified minimum service period in one school:
    • 2 years minimum service period for remote (transfer rating 7) schools
    • 3 years minimum service for all other schools (transfer rating 1 - 6).

Notwithstanding the above, teachers may apply for a transfer before completing the specified minimum service period in a school if the transfer is:

  • to a location with a higher transfer rating
  • between transfer rating 4 to 7
  • on compassionate grounds or due to domestic and family violence
  • operationally required by the department.
  1. [22]
    The Decision relates to Ms Kantor's request for transfer in 2021 for the 2022 school year.[10]
  1. [23]
    The Respondent submits Miss Kantor has been based at Redbank Plains SHS School within the Ipswich and Brisbane West geographic area of the Metropolitan Region since 23 January 2020. [11] Miss Kantor had previously been employed at Laidley State High School in the Gatton/Lockyer/Laidley geographic area of the Darling Downs - South West Region.[12]
  1. [24]
    Redbank Plains State High School has a transfer rating of 2.[13]
  1. [25]
    The Respondent's argument with respect to eligibility for transfer is reproduced below:

According to normal custom and practice, the Respondent applies the eligibility criteria in section 9.1 of the Guidelines such that after a teacher has been subject to a transfer, in this case in 2020 to Redbank Plains SHS, which has a transfer rating of 2, the teacher 'must have completed the specified minimum service period in one school', in this case 3 years, before being eligible to apply for a transfer. This minimum service requirement is to help ensure 'effective staffing across the State', which would reasonably include stability of the school community after receiving a transferred teacher and to minimise disruptions from a more frequent transfers of a teacher, wherever possible and appropriate.[14]

  1. [26]
    Miss Kantor submits that her most recent transfer request was made with the support of her Principal and notes that many teachers successfully apply for transfers before the required minimum service.[15] Further Ms Kantor argues that although she requested a transfer from Laidley SHS in 2019 for the 2020 school year,[16] upon receiving an "offer" for transfer to Redbank Plains SHS, she immediately advised that she did not want to be transferred there. Ms Kantor alleges she was subsequently advised she "was not able to either reject the offer or withdraw the transfer request".[17]
  1. [27]
    In reply, the Respondent refers to ss 3.3.3 and 3.3.9 of the Department of Education's Teacher Transfers Information Sheet - Transfers which instructs teachers to "ensure that you do not nominate a location that you are not willing to accept" and "Changes to your application after the closing date can only be made by HR staff and you will also be required to provide justification if you seek to withdraw your application after this date."
  1. [28]
    Turning now to consider Ms Kantor's eligibility to request a review, I note firstly that the decision to grant Ms Kantor's transfer request in 2019 for the 2020 school year is not the decision subject of this appeal. That matter has only been marked for background.
  1. [29]
    Upon review of s 9.1 of the Guidelines, I note the provision requires teachers to "have completed the specified minimum service period in one school".[18] On its plain and ordinary meaning, that would suggest that in order to request a transfer, a teacher must have completed either 2 years minimum service in one school with a transfer rating of 7 or 3 years minimum service in one school with a transfer rating between 1 - 6 inclusive. I reject the Department's interpretation that the "one school" refers to the school that the applicant teacher is working in at the time of making the request. If that were the intention, it is likely that requirement would have been clearly stipulated by wording such as "completed the specified minimum service period at the school they are currently employed". In my view, the fact that a certain pathway may be "normal custom and practice" does not mean the provision has been interpreted correctly.
  1. [30]
    I appreciate that if teachers make multiple transfer requests after only being at a school for a short period of time, that may be disruptive - however disruption does not affect eligibility under s 9.1 of the Guidelines.
  1. [31]
    I am satisfied Ms Kantor has served well over the specified minimum service period in one school on at least one occasion and on that basis, I find her transfer request was eligible for review.[19]
  1. [32]
    Even if I am wrong on that point, the Department nevertheless proceeded to review the transfer request and therefore I would proceed to hear the appeal nonetheless.

Miss Kantor's role as a Drama Teacher

  1. [33]
    The decision-maker advised:

Through your teaching service with the department you have accrued 18.00 teacher transfer point (sic). Your application indicated your recent teaching experience as English, Drama and Middle Schooling with English up to year 11. The Principals in the areas of Ipswich and Brisbane West, Brisbane South and Brisbane North geographic areas were looking for subject combinations that did not match your application. Unfortunately, the school (sic) in areas you identified did not open for drama.[20]

  1. [34]
    Miss Kantor contends the Department focused primarily on her role as a Drama Teacher despite her listing all subjects taught in the last five years.[21] Miss Kantor alleges she was forced to take the Drama Teacher role in 2019 despite the fact Drama is not her predominant teaching area and argues her official qualifications are in English and Humanities, which the Department ought to know.[22]
  1. [35]
    Miss Kantor submits that although her recent teaching experience includes Drama, that is by virtue of timetabling which she has no control over.[23] Further, Miss Kantor argues that teachers are advised by Human Resources to include all subjects they have been regularly timetabled to teach in their applications to demonstrate flexibility. However, Miss Kantor contends that such inclusions do not always reflect official credentials.[24]
  1. [36]
    The Respondent refers to the "Location and Teaching Preferences" section of the online transfer application form which asks for "Teacher Type" preferences. In response, Miss Kantor nominated "Teacher - English" as her top three preferences.[25] Miss Kantor contends this clearly shows that her nominated "Teaching Type" is English and "the idea that there were no vacancies is implausible".[26]
  1. [37]
    The Respondent also refers to the "Secondary Teaching Experience" section of the online transfer application form which asks applicant's to "detail your secondary teaching experience both in the last two years and throughout your teaching career".[27] In response, Miss Kantor detailed the following experience:
  • Teacher - General, teaching 'Middle Schooling - Secondary' for Year Levels 7, 8 and 9;
  • Teacher - English, teaching English for Year Levels 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; and
  • Teacher - The Arts, teaching Drama for Year Levels 7, 8 and 9.[28]
  1. [38]
    I agree with the Respondent's submission that it was not unfair nor unreasonable for the decision-maker to consider the response outlined in [37] when determining the teaching areas in relation to suitable vacancies.[29] Miss Kantor herself indicated she:
  • has "more than 10 years" total experience teaching Drama;
  • has been a "dedicated educator" in the area of Junior Drama;
  • is willing and able to teach wherever her expertise is most needed; and
  • has specialist expertise working with Junior Secondary students to achieve their full potential in Junior Drama.[30]
  1. [39]
    Upon review of the Decision, I am satisfied the decision maker considered Ms Kantor's teaching experience in English and the combination of teaching areas that Ms Kantor had experience in. It appears there simply were no vacancies for the subject combinations Ms Kantor had experience in, noting that combination included English, Drama and general 'Middle Schooling'.
  1. [40]
    I appreciate that English is clearly Ms Kantor's preference, however the Respondent also appropriately considered that Ms Kantor's experience includes Drama. Therefore, when considering a transfer request - it was reasonable for the Department to explore transfer options that involved Drama rather than focusing solely on English. To limit the scope of the search would not be reasonable in the absence of Ms Kantor asking the Department to do so.
  1. [41]
    Ms Kantor's argument that "the idea that there were no vacancies is implausible" is problematic and is not borne out on the evidence before me. Arguing that something simply cannot be true does not convince me that the Decision was in any way unfair or unreasonable.
  1. [42]
    I am satisfied the Decision followed a procedurally fair process and is reasonably justified given the availability of suitable vacancies in relation to Miss Kantor's teaching areas.

Miss Kantor's preferences

  1. [43]
    The decision-maker advised, "The school preferences identified in your application further restricted potential schools that could have utilized your skill sets."[31]
  1. [44]
    Miss Kantor argues this proposition is erroneous given she directly advised she was "happy to go to any inner-metro school - North, South or West."[32] I have reviewed correspondence annexed to the Appeal Notice between Miss Kantor and Ms Libby Hall, Senior Human Resource Consultant of the Department dated 26 May 2021. Ms Hall notes that Miss Kantor had listed some schools and enquired "Are you only willing to go to these schools or are you willing to go to other schools within the geographic areas you have listed?" In response, Miss Kantor advised (emphasis added):

The schools listed are my ideals. I am willing to go elsewhere but closer to metropolitan/inner city Brisbane. I have spent most of my career in outlying/rural schools and had to deal with long commutes. I want to work closer to home so I can be there more for my daughter as well as achieving more of a work-life balance.[33]

  1. [45]
    The Respondent submits that the discussion between Miss Kantor and Ms Hall was added by the Respondent to the application in the 'Authoriser Comments' section.[34]
  1. [46]
    The Respondent refers to the "Location and Teaching Preferences" section of the online transfer application form which asks for "Geographic Area/Location" preferences. In response, Miss Kantor nominated the Ipswich and Brisbane West Geographic Area, Brisbane Southside Geographic Area and Brisbane Northside Geographic Area as her top three preferences.[35]
  1. [47]
    Miss Kantor was also given the opportunity to "detail any additional relevant information concerning your geographic preferences, proposed place of residence or personal circumstances associated with this application".[36] In response, Miss Kantor provided (emphasis added):

I am an experienced and committed English teacher who is dedicated to improving student outcomes, and highly motivated by the unique challenges of working with aspirational students. I have specialist expertise working with Junior Secondary students to achieve their full potential in my subject areas: English, Humanities, Junior Drama. I live in Indooroopilly, and for environmental and family reasons, wish to reduce my daily commute. In view of this, I would value the opportunity to teach at schools such as Indooroopilly SHS, Kenmore SHS, BSDE, Kelvin Grove College or The Gap SHS.[37]

  1. [48]
    The Respondent noted that the distance between Miss Kantor's residence in Indooroopilly and Redbank Plains SHS is around 24 kilometres, typically equating to around a 24 - 45 minute one-way commute, according to Google Maps.[38] Miss Kantor contends that the worsening congestion means the daily route takes anywhere from 50 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes.[39]
  1. [49]
    I note firstly that the decision-maker commented, "The Principals in the areas of Ipswich and Brisbane West, Brisbane South and Brisbane North geographic areas were looking for subject combinations that did not match your application."[40] This suggests that the scope of geographic areas was broad and encompassed Miss Kantor's preferences.
  1. [50]
    The Respondent appropriately concluded based on Miss Kantor's application that schools reasonably considered suitable to Miss Kantor would only include schools with a commute time less than her current commute. Accordingly, that is a preference that the Department reasonably adopted and would have restricted the number of schools that could have utilised Miss Kantor's skill set within the nominated geographic areas.[41]
  1. [51]
    Miss Kantor also indicated she is willing to transfer to schools other than the specific schools she listed "but closer to metropolitan/inner city Brisbane" which again would have narrowed the scope of suitable schools. I consider it fair and reasonable that the Department took these factors into consideration, particularly considering Miss Kantor had previously indicated she was unhappy with the decision to transfer her to Redbank Plains SHS.
  1. [52]
    I am satisfied the Decision followed a procedurally fair process and is reasonably justified given the availability of suitable vacancies in relation to Miss Kantor's geographic preferences.

Failure to disclose

  1. [53]
    Miss Kantor refers to s 3 of the Guidelines which prescribes the objectives of the teacher transfer process, including to "ensure transfer decisions are equitable and transparent", "encourage teachers to contribute to our rural, remote and Indigenous communities" and "recognise rural and remote service by supporting teachers to return to a preferred location".
  1. [54]
    Miss Kantor has raised two concerns she alleges have not been addressed by the Department. Namely, whether other employees with fewer points have secured English or Humanities positions in any inner Brisbane school and why new graduates are being offered inner-city contracts "over permanent staff who have done country service but are still forced to take positions at non-preferred schools."[42]
  1. [55]
    Miss Kantor argues she requires full disclosure in response to her queries in order for the process to be considered equitable.[43]
  1. [56]
    Section 9.2 of the Guidelines states that "Transfer points provide the basis for determining the relative priority order of transfer requests." The decision-maker reasoned there must be a suitable vacancy to place a teacher in for a transfer to occur and as such there is no guarantee of transfer despite points accrued.[44] In response, Miss Kantor refers to s 10 of the Guidelines which allows the Department to require a teacher to transfer "to create a vacancy in a geographic area for a teacher with a high number of transfer points who is requesting a transfer to that location."
  1. [57]
    Miss Kantor is concerned that contracted staff, including new graduates and those who have never been required to complete 'country service', are being offered permanency in preferred areas prior to completion of the transfer process which in turn makes it difficult to place staff with accrued transfer points.[45] Miss Kantor contends employees like her with valuable experience in rural placements are being denied the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities in preferred schools.[46]
  1. [58]
    Although Miss Kantor may genuinely hold these broad concerns about disparity in treatment, she has not identified or evidenced real examples. I agree with the Respondent's contention that for the Decision to be fair and reasonable it does not require justification in the form sort by Miss Kantor. Each teacher is subject to different circumstances and each matter is necessarily assessed on its own facts. The Respondent provided examples of some teachers applying for compassionate transfers under s 11.1 of the Guidelines, a circumstance in which transfer points are not taken into account. Further, contracts offered to other teachers could be casual or fixed term temporary as opposed to permanent.[47]
  1. [59]
    In the absence of any evidence in support, I am not convinced that Ms Kantor has been treated unfairly in relation to other teachers during this process. The questions raised by Ms Kantor may constitute a fishing expedition and regardless, this appeal process is not the mechanism by which Miss Kantor should be seeking those answers. I am satisfied the Decision was reasonably justified in light of a lack of vacancies.

Overlooked factors

  1. [60]
    Miss Kantor refers to s 3 of the Guidelines which outlines the objective to "increase the potential for successful transfers to take into consideration an individual teacher's personal circumstances, professional capabilities and career interests." Section 10 of the Guidelines provides, "teachers may be required to teach in any location… to provide a teacher with a range of teaching experiences." Noting these provisions, Miss Kantor contends the Department has overlooked the following factors:
  • Miss Kantor has worked in low socio-economic schools for the entirety of her career;
  • Miss Kantor has been instrumental in developing and successfully delivering extension programmes; and
  • Miss Kantor emphasised in her application that she would now like the opportunity to teach in an aspirational school.[48]
  1. [61]
    I note that Miss Kantor obtained a statement from the Principal of Redbank Plains SHS in support of her transfer request. That piece of correspondence was considered by the decision maker as part of the review process however as rightfully pointed out by the Respondent, the Principal's correspondence forms only an opinion on the matter and he is not the decision maker.[49]
  1. [62]
    As outlined above, s 9 of the Guidelines stipulates that "Transfers are subject to the availability of suitable vacancies in relation to both teaching areas and geographic preferences and the relative priority order of teacher transfer requests is determined by taking into account transfer points." I appreciate the value of Miss Kantor's experience and service, however have already concluded that a lack of suitable vacancies reasonably justified the Decision.
  1. [63]
    On 28 January 2022, Miss Kantor sent an email to the Industrial Registry submitting the Respondent:
  1. Made glaring errors in its own submissions without acknowledgement or apology.
  2. Failed to provide salient information despite repeated requests.
  3. Refused to admit to flaws in its own transfer system as identified by a school manager.
  4. Demonstrated disregard and disrespect for its own employees at all levels by deriding the merit of their knowledge and experience.
  1. [64]
    I have considered Miss Kantor's final submissions but do not accept those comments are borne out on the evidence before me.
  1. [65]
    Finally, I note that the notification date of transfer outcomes from the review stage was 4 November 2021.[50] However, the Decision was given on 6 December 2021. I accept the release of the Decision on 6 December 2021 to be reasonable because the panel had been advised a suitable position may become available which may have therefore altered the outcome. In that context, I accept the delay to be reasonable however recommend out of courtesy that the Department request an extension of time from a transfer applicant in the future.

Conclusion

  1. [66]
    Based on the information available to the decision maker at the time of making the Decision, I conclude the Decision is fair and reasonable.
  1. [67]
    I am satisfied the decision maker undertook the appropriate procedure pursuant to the Guidelines and determined Miss Kantor's request in the context of her accumulated transfer points, preferences and vacant roles.
  1. [68]
    I appreciate Miss Kantor has worked hard in rural areas for many years and understand her desire to reduce commuting time. However, in the absence of evidence that the decision maker has erred in applying the Guidelines or overlooked key factors, I am unable to determine the Decision is unfair or unreasonable.
  1. [69]
    I accept the decision maker considered all material available at the time of making the Decision however was unable to accept the request due to a lack of available positions. Although Miss Kantor characterises the Department's actions as demonstrating "disregard and disrespect", I have concluded they did not act unfairly or unreasonably and it appeared they too desired to accommodate Miss Kantor's request but simply were unable to do so at this time.
  1. [70]
    In all of the circumstances I consider that the decision was fair and reasonable.  
  1. [71]
    I order accordingly 

Order

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

Footnotes

[1] Appeal Notice, 7 December 2021, 1; Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 1 [4].

[2] Letter from Mr C. Hodgson to Ms S. Kantor, 6 December 2021.

[3] Teacher Transfer Review Panel.

[4] Letter from Mr C. Hodgson to Ms S. Kantor, 6 December 2021.

[5] Ibid Attachment.

[6] [2019] QSC 170, [207]-[210], citing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, [63]-[76].

[7] Appeal Notice, 7 December 2021, 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Department of Education, Teacher Transfer Guidelines, s 9.

[10] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 2 [9].

[11] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 1 [5].

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 4 [28].

[15] Appellant's Reply Submissions, 13 January 2022, 2.

[16] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 4 [27].

[17] Appellant's Reply Submissions, 13 January 2022, 1 [1]a).

[18] Emphasis added.

[19] Appellant's Submissions, 13 January 2022, Annexure.

[20] Letter from Mr C. Hodgson to Ms S. Kantor, 6 December 2021, Attachment.

[21] Appellant's Submissions, 9 December 2021, 2 [4]e).

[22] Appeal Notice, 7 December 2021, 4.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Appellant's Reply Submissions, 13 January 2022, 3.

[25] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 2 [11]-[12].

[26] Appellant's Reply Submissions, 13 January 2022, 2.

[27] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 2 [13].

[28] Ibid 3 [14].

[29] Ibid 5 [32].

[30] Ibid.

[31] Letter from Mr C. Hodgson to Ms S. Kantor, 6 December 2021, Attachment.

[32] Appeal Notice, 7 December 2021, 4.

[33] Ibid Attachment 2.

[34] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 3 [18].

[35] Ibid 2 [11]-[12]

[36] Ibid 3 [15].

[37] Ibid [16].

[38] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 3 [19].

[39] Appellant's Reply Submissions, 13 January 2022, 3.

[40] Letter from Mr C. Hodgson to Ms S. Kantor, 6 December 2021, Attachment.

[41] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 5 [33].

[42] Appeal Notice, 7 December 2021, 4.

[43] Appellant's Submissions, 9 December 2021, 1.

[44] Letter from Mr C. Hodgson to Ms S. Kantor, 6 December 2021, Attachment.

[45] Appellant's Submissions, 9 December 2021, 1-2 [2]a).

[46] Ibid 2 [2]b)-c).

[47] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 5 [34].

[48] Appellant's Submissions, 9 December 2021, 2 [3].

[49] Respondent's Further Submissions, 27 January 2022, 2 [8].

[50] Respondent's Submissions, 20 December 2021, 4 [30].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Kantor v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Kantor v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 71

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    McLennan IC

  • Date:

    08 Mar 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
Gilmour v Waddell [2019] QSC 170
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 170
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2013) 249 CLR 332
Cite 2 - (2013) 249 CLR 332

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.