Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Hawkins v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) - [2023] QIRC 11

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

Hawkins v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)[2023] QIRC 11

Hawkins v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)[2023] QIRC 11

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION

Hawkins v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 011

PARTIES:

Hawkins, Frances

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/980

PROCEEDING:

Public Service Appeal – Fair treatment decision

DELIVERED ON:

17 January 2023

HEARD AT:

On the papers

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

ORDERS:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – appeal against a disciplinary finding decision – allegations substantiated – where disciplinary action has not yet been taken – whether disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable –  disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable –  disciplinary finding decision confirmed.

LEGISLATION AND

OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service cls 1, 3, 4

Crime and Corruption Act 2001 s 38

Directive 14/20: Discipline cls 5, 7

Industrial Relations Act ss 562B, 562C

Public Service Act 2008 ss 137, 186, 187, 194

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 s 13

TransLink Senior Network Officer Policy and Procedure Manual October 2019

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 ss 129V, 129W

Youth Justice Act 1992 sch 1

CASES:

Kereama v State of Queensland [2021] QIRC 343

Robynson v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 244

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Frances Hawkins (the Appellant) is a Senior Network Officer (SNO) employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) (the Respondent). The Appellant has been employed by the Respondent in this role since 27 June 2011.
  1. [2]
    Ms Hawkins appeals the decision of Mr Graham Davis, General Manager (Passenger Transport Services), Translink (the decision-maker) to make disciplinary findings against her in relation to the following substantiated allegation:

Allegation 1

On or about 19 March 2021, Ms Hawkins failed to comply with the juvenile justice principles as per Schedule 1 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 when dealing with a 15-year-old male juvenile passenger.

  1. [3]
    In an eighteen-page letter dated 11 October 2022 and sent to the Appellant by email on 24 October 2022, Mr Davis set out his findings in relation to the matter from pages 7 to 15 and concluded:

On the basis of my findings in relation to the Allegation, I have determined that pursuant to s 187(1)(g) of the PS Act you contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct, namely clauses 1.5, 3.1 and 4.1 of the Code of Conduct in a way that is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action.

  1. [4]
    The letter goes on to request that Ms Hawkins show cause with regard to the proposed disciplinary action of a reprimand.
  1. [5]
    Ms Hawkins sets out her reasons for appeal in Part C of her appeal notice:

The decision was not fair and reasonable because:

It was not open to the decision maker to be reasonably satisfied of the substantiated disciplinary finding.

It was not open to the decision maker to be reasonably satisfied that any conduct amounted to misconduct.

The applicant seeks that the decision be set aside.

Background

  1. [6]
    Ms Hawkins has been employed by the Department as an SNO since 27 June 2011. As an SNO, Ms Hawkins holds an appointment as a Transit Officer (TO) under ss 111(3) and 111A(2) of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (TOPTA).
  1. [7]
    As a TO, Ms Hawkins has statutory powers under the TOPTA and is required to demonstrate a high level of ethical behaviour to properly exercise those powers, which include:
  1. (a)
    detaining a person, using such reasonable force as is necessary (ss 129A and 129B of the TOPTA);
  2. (b)
    searching a person (including a frisk search) (s 129O of the TOPTA);
  3. (c)
    issuing fines (s 150C of the TOPTA and s 13 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999); and
  4. (d)
    directing a person to leave a train (in certain circumstances) (s 143AG of the TOPTA).[1]
  1. [8]
    As a TO, when Ms Hawkins is performing a function or exercising a power under the TOPTA in relation to a juvenile, she is required to have regard to the youth justice principles under the Youth Justice Act 1992 (YJA) (s 129W of the TOPTA).[2]

The incident

  1. [9]
    The facts regarding what occurred on the evening of 19 March 2021 have been set out by both Ms Hawkins and the Respondent in their submissions and in the other material  before me. I have also been provided with the body-worn camera (BWC) footage for Ms Hawkins and the four colleagues she was working with on the night.
  1. [10]
    I do not intend to set out every aspect of the events of the evening.  I have reviewed the material available to me and I have watched the footage. 
  1. [11]
    At about 8.08pm, Ms Hawkins was working on an inbound train from Caboolture to the city with four colleagues. At around this time, Ms Hawkins encountered a 15-year-old, juvenile, male passenger (Passenger) smoking on the train. The BWC footage depicts what occurred.
  1. [12]
    The events which occurred following the initial interaction between Ms Hawkins and the Passenger culminated in the Passenger being: removed from the train; restrained by some of Ms Hawkins' colleagues; continuing to be restrained despite reporting that he thought he may vomit; and not being allowed to answer his phone.
  1. [13]
    The details of the incident are set out in extensive detail in both the decision letter, Ms Hawkins' submissions, the Respondent's submissions and other material filed in support of the Respondent's submissions. A number of the actions taken in relation to the Passenger were taken by Ms Hawkins' SNO colleagues and not Ms Hawkins herself, however Ms Hawkins was present when the events took place.
  1. [14]
    Relevant to Ms Hawkins, Mr Davis found that she had failed to treat the Passenger with respect and dignity by:
  1. (a)
    making insufficient enquiries of him before directing him to leave the train, and certainly before he was removed from the train;
  2. (b)
    failing to reposition him (or asking another SNO to reposition him) when he said he felt sick and that he wanted to vomit; and
  3. (c)
    unreasonably refusing him the opportunity to answer his phone call, or for an SNO to answer the phone on his behalf.

Review of the incident and subsequent investigation

  1. [15]
    On 25 March 2021, the incident subject of the allegation was referred by the Respondent to the Department of Transport and Main Road's Ethical Standard Unit (ESU) alongside the incident reports of the involved SNOs and their BWC footage of the incident.
  1. [16]
    The Appellant was placed on alternative duties with normal remuneration on 7 April 2021 in accordance with s 137(3) of the Public Service Act 2008 (the PS Act).
  1. [17]
    On 14 April 2021, the ESU referred the incident to the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) pursuant to s 38 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001.
  1. [18]
    The CCC subsequently issued a Matters Assessed Report (MAR) on 13 May 2021 in relation to the incident which determined that the Appellant's conduct did not amount to suspected corrupt conduct and advised that the incident was a matter for the Respondent to deal with as a Code of Conduct issue or an alleged disciplinary breach. Other elements of the incident were assessed by the CCC to meet the definition of 'corrupt conduct' if proven.
  1. [19]
    Upon receipt of the MAR, Trevor Chippindall, Director, ESU, appointed Ashdale Workplace Solutions (the investigator) to investigate the allegations made against the SNOs involved in the incident, including the Appellant.
  1. [20]
    Mr Davis wrote to Ms Hawkins on 21 May 2021 to return her to her substantive role.
  1. [21]
    Ms Hawkins was interviewed by the investigator on 1 September 2021. The investigation report regarding the allegations made against the SNOs involved in the incident was provided to the Respondent on 18 November 2021.
  1. [22]
    Mr Davis, the decision-maker, considered the investigation report and commenced a disciplinary process against the Appellant in respect of the allegation.
  1. [23]
    The Respondent says that Mr Davis considered that management action would not be appropriate given the severity of the alleged conduct and the impact on the Passenger and possible reputational damage for the Department arising from the incident.

Disciplinary process

  1. [24]
    Mr Davis wrote to Ms Hawkins on 3 May 2022 asking her to show cause within 14 days as to why disciplinary findings should not be made against her in relation to the allegation under s 187(1)(g) of the PS Act (the first show cause notice). To enable the Appellant to respond, the letter contained relevant material including the body-worn camera footage.
  1. [25]
    Mr Davis approved an extension of time for the Appellant's legal representative to respond to the first show cause notice. Ms Claire McGee, Associate at Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice, responded on behalf of the Appellant in correspondence dated 16 June 2022.
  1. [26]
    On 19 July 2022, Mr Davis provided the Appellant with additional footage of which he had become recently aware and had not yet been provided to Ms Hawkins. The Appellant was provided a further period of seven days to respond to the further footage, however Ms Hawkins did not provide a response.[3]
  1. [27]
    In correspondence dated 11 October 2022, Mr Davis issued a second show cause notice in which he advised the Appellant that he found the allegation substantiated. The decision-maker said he was giving serious consideration to issuing the Appellant with a reprimand and gave her seven days to respond to the proposed action. This correspondence was emailed to the Appellant on 24 October 2022.
  1. [28]
    Ms Hawkins' legal representative responded on her behalf in an email dated 27 October 2022. Ms McGee said:

We refer to Ms Hawkins' matter.

We note the contents of the show cause notice and the proposed disciplinary action consisting of a reprimand only.

Please note that Ms Hawkins has no further submissions to make in relation to the proposed disciplinary action.

Should Mr Davis seek to impose something harsher than a reprimand, we seek an opportunity to make further submissions, otherwise we look forward to receiving the final outcome.

  1. [29]
    Ms Hawkins' appeal notice was subsequently filed with the Industrial Registry on 10 November 2022.
  1. [30]
    The decision-maker is yet to determine whether to impose the proposed disciplinary penalty of a reprimand or take any other course of action. The disciplinary process has been suspended pending the outcome of this appeal, which was communicated to the Appellant by Mr Davis in a letter dated 1 December 2022.

Is the Appellant entitled to appeal?

  1. [31]
    In its submissions filed on 13 December 2022, the Respondent raises two preliminary matters pertaining to Ms Hawkins' appeal notice. The Respondent submits:
  1. 3.Ms Hawkins asserts in the Notice of Appeal that it was not reasonably open to the decision maker to be satisfied that her conduct amounted to misconduct. As the Decision does not make a finding that Ms Hawkins engaged in misconduct the Respondent submits that Ms Hawkins' assertion regarding misconduct is misconceived and ought to be disregarded by the Commission.
  2. 4.Ms Hawkins also claims in her submissions filed on 29 November 2022 (Submissions) that her Notice of Appeal is filed pursuant to s 194(1)(b) of the Public Service Act 2008 (PS Act), which provides for an appeal against a decision to discipline a person. However, to date, neither Mr Davis nor any other person has decided to take disciplinary action against Ms Hawkins.
  3. 5.Therefore, the Respondent submits that the ground of appeal under s 194(1)(b) of the PS Act cannot be engaged and Ms Hawkins' reliance on that ground of appeal is misconceived.
  1. [32]
    Section 194 of the PS Act lists various categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Section 194(1)(b)(i) provides that an appeal may be made against a decision under a disciplinary law to discipline a person (other than by termination of employment), including the action taken in disciplining the person.
  1. [33]
    Ms Hawkins' appeal was lodged as an appeal against a disciplinary decision. At this stage, there has been no decision made to discipline the Appellant. Ms Hawkins' appeal is against the finding that grounds for discipline have been established under s 187(1)(g) of the PS Act and is therefore better characterised as a fair treatment appeal.
  1. [34]
    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. [35]
    The appeal notice was filed with the Industrial Registry on 10 November 2022 within 21 days of the decision being received on 24 October 2022. I am satisfied that the decision is one that may be appealed against and that the appeal was lodged with the required time.

Appeal Principles

  1. [36]
    Section 562B(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (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. [37]
    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. [38]
    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. [39]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the 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 Framework and other Instruments

The PS Act

  1. [40]
    Section 187(1)(g) of the PS Act states:

187 Grounds for discipline

  1. (1)
    A public service employee's chief executive may discipline the employee if the chief executive is reasonably satisfied the employee has—

…

  1. (g)
    contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct in a way that is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action.

Directive 14/20: Discipline

  1. [41]
    Directive 14/20: Discipline (the Directive) relevantly states:
  1. 5.Requirements to commence a discipline process

…

  1. 5.2In forming a view about the seriousness of the employee’s personal conduct and/or work performance under clause 5.1(a), the chief executive should consider:
  1. (a)
    whether there are recent previous and/or repeated instances of inappropriate conduct from the employee, and management action has recently been taken for similar conduct
  2. (b)
    the impact of the alleged conduct on the employee, their colleagues, the workplace, the complainant, and the reputation of the public sector
  3. (c)
    whether the alleged conduct is reasonably suspected to have caused actual harm, or a risk to the health and safety of employees, or other people
  4. (d)
    the nature of the alleged conduct, including what the most serious disciplinary outcome may be for conduct of this nature.

…

  1. 7.Discipline for conduct
  2. 7.1Section 187 of the PS Act provides a chief executive may discipline an employee if they are reasonably satisfied a ground for discipline arises.
  3. 7.2The circumstances in which a contravention of a relevant standard of conduct under section 187(1)(g) of the PS Act is likely to be considered sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action are where the chief executive forms a view that management action is not likely to address and/or resolve the work performance matter.
  4. 7.3In forming a view under clause 7.2, the chief executive must consider whether there are more proactive strategies than disciplinary action to manage the personal and professional development of employees, including through training and development. Additionally, the chief executive must consider:
  1. (a)
    whether the matter has been assessed as meeting the definition of corrupt conduct and has been referred to the Crime and Corruption Commission, or has been referred to the Queensland Police Service as a potential criminal offence
  2. (b)
    whether management action is an appropriate response based on the nature of the alleged conduct (for example, management action is not appropriate for matters involving theft, fraud, sexual harassment, negligence, or maladministration)
  3. (c)
    whether implementing management action would eliminate or effectively control the risk to the health and safety of employees, or other people, posed by the alleged conduct
  4. (d)
    whether management action would alleviate or mitigate the impact of the alleged conduct on the employee, their colleagues, the workplace, the complainant, and the reputation of the public sector
  5. (e)
    whether management action has recently been taken for previous similar instance/s of inappropriate conduct, and the management action did not result in sustained correction of the employee’s conduct
  6. (f)
    if the contravention is of a more serious nature, but is a single and/or isolated incident of poor conduct (that is, not a pattern of unreasonable behaviours), whether the chief executive has reasonable concerns about the employee’s potential for modified behaviour through management action that clarifies the expected standards of conduct and provides the opportunity and support for the employee to demonstrate sustained correction of their conduct.

Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service

  1. [42]
    In addition, the Code of Conduct stipulates the following:
  1. 1.Integrity and impartiality

…

  1. 1.5Demonstrate a high standard of workplace behaviour and personal conduct

We have a responsibility to always conduct and present ourselves in a professional manner, and demonstrate respect for all persons, whether fellow employees, clients or members of the public.

We will:

  1. a.treat co-workers, clients and members of the public with courtesy and respect, be appropriate in our relationships with them, and recognise that others have the right to hold views which may differ from our own

…

  1. c.ensure our fitness for duty, and the safety, health and welfare of ourselves and others in the workplace, whether co-workers or clients

…

  1. 3.Commitment to the system of government
  2. 3.1Commit to our roles in public service

Our role is to undertake our duties, and to give effect to the policies of the elected government, regardless of its political complexion.

We will:

  1. c.comply with the laws of State, Australian and local governments

…

  1. e.adhere to the policies, organisational values and organisational documents of our employing agency.

…

  1. 4.Accountability and transparency
  2. 4.1Ensure diligence in public administration

We have an obligation to seek to achieve high standards of public administration and perform our duties to the best of our abilities.

We will:

  1. a.apply due care in our work, and provide accurate and impartial advice to all clients whether members of the public, public service agencies, or any level of government

…

  1. c.exercise our lawful powers and authority with care and for the purpose for which these were granted…

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994

  1. [43]
    Section 129W of TOPTA states:

129W Application of youth justice principles

  1. (1)
    A transit officer performing a function or exercising a power under this part in relation to a child must, in performing the function or exercising the power, have regard to the youth justice principles under the Youth Justice Act 1992.
  2. (2)
    Subsection (1) does not limit any provision of this part that specifically provides for the application of a principle mentioned in the Youth Justice Act 1992, schedule 1.
  1. [44]
    Section 129V says:

129V Guidelines must be followed

A transit officer performing a function or exercising a power under this part must follow the guidelines forming part of transit officer training.

Youth Justice Principles

  1. [45]
    The youth justice principles are outlined in Schedule 1 of the Youth Justice Act 1992. The relevant principles are outlined below:

Schedule 1 Charter of youth justice principles

  1. 3
    A child being dealt with under this Act should be—
  1. (a)
    treated with respect and dignity, including while the child is in custody; and

…

  1. 6
    A child being dealt with under this Act should have procedures and other matters explained to the child in a way the child understands.

…

  1. 9
    A child who commits an offence should be—

…

  1. (d)
    dealt with in a way that recognises the child’s need for guidance and assistance because children tend to be dependent and immature.

Learner Guide 2019

  1. [46]
    Furthermore, the Learner Guide 2019 provides:[4]

Learner Guide 2019

Frontline Leadership

During a use of force situation, you must:

  1. (a)
    assist your fellow officers;
  2. (b)
    fix something if it’s going wrong;
  3. (c)
    stop something that is wrong; and
  4. (d)
    report – explain what you observed.

TransLink Senior Network Officer Policy and Procedure Manual

  1. [47]
    The TransLink Senior Network Officer Policy and Procedure Manual October 2019 states:[5]

Principle Aims of a SNO

…

The aim of the SNO role is to carry out holistic revenue protection duties. Revenue protection duties are described as below:

…

  • Use best endeavours to ensure passengers are safe and secure while travelling on TransLink Division services.

…

Dealing with Juveniles, Persons with Impaired Capacity and Persons with a Disability

…

A SNO dealing with a juvenile or person with impair capacity must keep the juvenile or person safe.  SNOs should consider the potential risks to the juvenile or person's safety and well-being…

Was it fair and reasonable to find that Allegation One was substantiated?

Submissions

  1. [48]
    Ms Hawkins says that there is no justification to decide that she failed to comply with the Youth Justice Principles or failed to treat the juvenile Passenger with respect and dignity, without reasonable excuse.
  1. [49]
    The Respondent submits that the incident was not an unusual situation that may be faced by SNOs, and Ms Hawkins' failure to make reasonable enquiries which ultimately resulted in excessive force being used on a juvenile reflected adversely on the Department's public reputation. The Respondent says that the Department provides essential public transport services and it is imperative that, through its employees, it maintains the highest ethics and integrity and at all times seeks to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all customers.

Directing the Passenger to leave the train

  1. [50]
    With regard to the finding that she had made 'insufficient enquiries of the juvenile Passenger before directing him to leave the train, and certainly before he was removed from the train', Ms Hawkins says, in summary:
  • the Passenger quickly became aggressive and threatening to her and her colleagues when he was confronted about smoking on the train;
  • the Passenger provided a false name when asked and continuously made threats of physical and sexual violence against her and her colleagues;
  • even when restrained and asked whether he would agree to leave the premises and not return, the Passenger responded with an expletive;
  • although it would have been possible to make further enquiries of the Passenger before he left the train, there is nothing to suggest those enquiries would be met with anything other than lies and/or threats;
  • she disagrees that further enquiries would have de-escalated the situation;
  • although a juvenile, the Passenger was 15, smoking, stated he was in a gang and a former martial arts fighter;
  • the Passenger was already travelling alone late at night and had a mobile phone;
  • it was not unreasonable to believe that he was sufficiently old enough and mature enough to find alternative transport in those circumstances, being one of the considerations in Schedule 1 of the YJA; and
  • she submits that it was reasonable not to make further enquiries of the Passenger before he was removed from the train.
  1. [51]
    The Respondent says that the most critical of Ms Hawkins' failings was the failure to make enquiries as to where the Passenger was travelling, including how he was getting home, considering that it was after 8:00pm at night, before deciding it was appropriate to issue him with a direction to leave the train.
  1. [52]
    With reference to page 11 of the second show cause notice, the Respondent says that Mr Davis determined that Ms Hawkins was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the Passenger was a juvenile and notes that Ms Hawkins admits this in her submissions.  The Respondent says that while Ms Hawkins had the power under the TOPTA to direct juveniles to leave trains, from her training materials, she was aware, or ought to have been aware, that she was required to exercise additional caution and discretion before doing so.
  1. [53]
    The Respondent points to the Translink Senior Network Officer Policy and Procedure Manual October 2019 (SNOPPM),[6] in respect of which it says Ms Hawkins received training on 31 July 2020. It provides that, 'School students identified travelling to and from school must not be given a direction to leave a public passenger vehicle'. The Respondent says that while the Passenger was not travelling to school, the SNOPPM also provides that 'For juveniles not in school uniform or travelling on a PPV out of school, SNOs again should use their discretion when dealing with ticketing and behavioural offences subject to relevant legislation and policies'. Further, the Respondent says that the SNOPPM details that 'If a person is required to leave, SNOs should consider the safety of the person, other passengers and SNOs'.
  1. [54]
    While the Respondent does not dispute that Ms Hawkins had the power to issue the direction to the Passenger to leave the train, if she had acted in accordance with her training, she ought to have made further enquiries before deciding if it was appropriate to issue a direction to leave.
  1. [55]
    The Respondent says that in making the decision to substantiate the allegation, Mr Davis considered all relevant material before him, including the transcript of Ms Hawkins' interview with Ashdale and the response to the first show cause notice. 
  1. [56]
    The Respondent says:

As the Passenger was a juvenile and it was after 8pm at night, Ms Hawkins ought to have asked further questions of him prior to directing him to leave the train and certainly prior to his actual removal (including by attempting to ascertain where he was travelling to and how he might safely return home if he was removed from the train). Relevantly:

  1. (a)
    Ms Hawkins did not know how far the Burpengary train station was from the Passenger's intended destination; and
  2. (b)
    the passenger had very limited transport options as:
  1. (i)
    he was too young to drive;
  2. (ii)
    once directed to leave the train station the Passenger would be unable to return to the station platform continue his journey via train; and
  3. (iii)
    bus services would not necessarily be available at that time of night.[7]
  1. [57]
    The Respondent submits that if Ms Hawkins made enquiries of this kind, which she is trained to do, she may have been able to de-escalate the situation using her communication skills and may have determined that it was unnecessary to remove a possibly substance-affected juvenile from a train at night. Further, the Respondent says that there were several opportunities early in the interaction where the Passenger was compliant and calm and Ms Hawkins could have reconsidered whether directing him to leave the train at night was the appropriate cause of action.
  1. [58]
    The Respondent says that it was not impossible to get coherent information from the Passenger, and Ms Hawkins failed to provide any reasonable excuse for failing to make appropriate enquiries about the Passenger's intended destination, which it says would only have taken a few seconds.  The Respondent says that simply because the Passenger gave a false name, does not mean that any further questioning would be futile.
  1. [59]
    The Respondent says that in her submissions, Ms Hawkins acknowledges that it would have been possible to make further enquiries of the Passenger before directing him to leave the train, but she suggests that there was no point in her doing so.  The Respondent says that it may have been reasonable for Ms Hawkins to determine there was no point in her asking further questions had she made several attempts to obtain information from the Passenger but says that as she had not made any enquiries, it was a premature decision and seemingly a deliberate choice not to make reasonable enquiries as she was trained to do.
  1. [60]
    The Respondent says that the Passenger's threats and claims to be a mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter did not justify Ms Hawkins' failure to make enquiries before removing him from the train.
  1. [61]
    The Respondent says that there was no rational basis for Ms Hawkins' submission that because the Passenger was 'abusive' to the SNOs, it is likely he would have been 'abusive' to other passengers if he had remained on the train. The Respondent says that the Passenger only started to swear after one of Ms Hawkins' colleagues made what it says is an unnecessary comment by saying, 'You're smoking on the train, fella.'.
  1. [62]
    The Respondent says that there is no evidence to support Ms Hawkins' submission that she was trained not to ask passengers if they were substance affected.
  1. [63]
    Ms Hawkins said in her submissions that the Passenger was abusive to four of her colleagues, however the Respondent says that only two SNOs, being Ms Hawkins and one colleague, had engaged with the Passenger at the time she asked him to leave the train.

Consideration of submissions

  1. [64]
    I have reviewed all of the submissions and material available to me, including the body-worn camera footage. 
  1. [65]
    I find that it was fair and reasonable for the Respondent to hold an expectation that Ms Hawkins make further enquiries prior to directing the Passenger to leave the train. It is clear from the footage that the direction is given very early on in the interaction with the Passenger and I find that it was open to Mr Davis to find that there was opportunity for further enquiries to be made.
  1. [66]
    I understand the reasons Ms Hawkins' has given as to why she did not make further enquiries of the Passenger, however I find that a belief that such enquiries may be futile does not excuse Ms Hawkins from attempting to engage in such enquiries. 
  1. [67]
    I accept that Ms Hawkins was able to lawfully request the Passenger to disembark from the train, however it is clear that the legislative and policy framework Ms Hawkins was operating in required her to take additional steps to help inform herself of the situation before giving the direction to the Passenger to leave the train.
  1. [68]
    I accept Mr Davis' conclusion that not only was there no attempt to enquire about the Passenger's journey and alternative travel options, but that the direction to leave the train at the next station escalated the situation and contributed to the circumstances which culminated in the use of force to restrain the Passenger.
  1. [69]
    Ms Hawkins submits that as the Passenger was travelling alone after 8:00pm and had a mobile phone, it was reasonable for her to believe that he was 'sufficiently old enough and mature enough to find alternative transport in those circumstances'. While I understand that I am considering the event with the benefit of hindsight and the submissions of the parties, it is my view that it was not reasonable for Ms Hawkins to form a view that the Passenger was capable of finding alternative transport when she was not aware of where he was travelling, his financial situation and his capacity to arrange an alternative method of transportation once train travel became unavailable to him that night.
  1. [70]
    At the time of the interaction, the Passenger was sitting alone on the train.  While he was clearly doing the wrong thing by smoking on the train, I cannot find that his aggressive reaction to two SNOs interacting with him (and three accompanying them) in the way that occurred can necessarily lead to a conclusion that had he been left alone to continue his journey, he would have become abusive or aggressive to other passengers.
  1. [71]
    It was open to Mr Davis to find that Ms Hawkins had failed to make sufficient enquiries of the Passenger before directing him to leave the train and prior to his actual removal from the train.

Not taking steps to cause the Passenger to be repositioned when he said he was going to be sick

  1. [72]
    With regard to the finding that she 'failed to reposition' the Passenger or failed to 'ask another SNO to reposition him' when he said he felt sick and wanted to vomit, Ms Hawkins says, in summary:
  • it was reasonable in the circumstances to not request her colleagues to reposition the Passenger when he was restrained on the ground.
  • while he said he felt he would vomit, he also provided a false name, resisted his removal from the train, and attempted to strike the colleagues who were restraining him.
  • it is possible that his statement was made in an attempt to escape.
  • he had threatened to stab Ms Hawkins and her colleagues and they were unsure whether he had access to a weapon.
  • the Passenger was not in a position where vomiting would harm him as he was face down and with his head to the side.
  • while it may have been possible to reposition him, doing so would have increased the risk that he would continue to strike and/or spit at Ms Hawkins and her colleagues.
  • repositioning the Passenger carried the risk that he would access a weapon.
  • in circumstances where the police were already on their way, it was not unreasonable to maintain the position of the Passenger until their arrival.
  • the Passenger did not vomit or show any signs that he was unwell at any stage during the incident.
  1. [73]
    Mr Davis was satisfied that Ms Hawkins should have taken steps to cause the Passenger to be repositioned when the other SNOs were restraining him and he said he felt like he was going to be sick.
  1. [74]
    While Ms Hawkins says that the Passenger did not vomit or show any signs that he was unwell at any stage during the incident, the Respondent says that this ignores that the Passenger said he felt sick. The Respondent says that Ms Hawkins is selective as to which of the Passenger's comments she believed and that it is unclear why she believes his assertion that he is an MMA fighter but not that he thought he would vomit.
  1. [75]
    The Respondent says that as SNOs are trained regarding the risks of ground restraint techniques, including positional asphyxia (obstruction of breathing as a result of restraint technique that can result in death), any comment by a restrained person that they may vomit ought to be taken seriously and not simply ignored.

Consideration of submissions

  1. [76]
    As stated above, I have reviewed the footage and all material available to me. I find that it was fair and reasonable for the Respondent to have an expectation that Ms Hawkins attempt to intervene to cause the Passenger to be re-positioned.
  1. [77]
    Observations that she did not believe the Passenger and that he never ended up vomiting do not assist Ms Hawkins in circumstances where the expectation was that she take steps to seek that her colleagues reposition the Passenger at the time that he stated that he thought he may vomit.
  1. [78]
    I agree with the Respondent that it is unclear why Ms Hawkins believed some of the statements made by the Passenger (i.e. that he was a MMA fighter) but not that he thought he was going to vomit while being restrained on the ground.
  1. [79]
    I accept that Ms Hawkins had received training regarding the risks of ground restraint, and while she was not personally responsible for restraining the Passenger, it was clearly within her means to suggest that he be repositioned once he stated that he thought he may vomit.
  1. [80]
    I do not accept that repositioning the Passenger posed an unacceptable risk that he would escape or attack Ms Hawkins or her colleagues.  There were five SNOs present and the footage demonstrates that the Passenger was being effectively restrained.  At one point, it appears that one SNO takes over from another and the restraint is maintained.
  1. [81]
    I understand that in the moment, those involved need to weigh up the risks and consider the context they are in.  Given that the Passenger was a juvenile being restrained on the ground and was claiming that he thought he may vomit, I find that it was open to Mr Davis to have an expectation that Ms Hawkins would take steps to enquire of her colleagues regarding the appropriateness of continuing to restrain the Passenger in the way he was being restrained.
  1. [82]
    It may well be that Ms Hawkins colleagues may determine to continue restraining the Passenger in that position despite her suggestion that he be repositioned.  However, I find it was fair and reasonable for Mr Davis to expect that Ms Hawkins would attempt to intervene in some way.

Not allowing the Passenger to answer his mobile phone

  1. [83]
    With regard to the finding that she had 'unreasonably refused' the Passenger 'the opportunity to answer his phone call, or for an SNO to answer the phone on his behalf', Ms Hawkins says, in summary:
  • the Passenger repeatedly threatened violence against the SNOs and indicated either that he was in a gang or had associates who would assist him to harm Ms Hawkins and her colleagues.
  • answering the Passenger's phone for him, or allowing him to do so, carried the risk that he would ask whoever called to arrange for those associates to attend the station and assist the Passenger to harm Ms Hawkins and her colleagues.
  • there was a risk in reaching into the Passenger's pocket as it was unknown what was in his pocket.
  • reaching into a minor's pocket would expose Ms Hawkins or her colleagues to a potential allegation of impropriety.
  • the police were on their way and would facilitate the Passenger contacting his friends and/or family in a relatively short time.
  1. [84]
    Ms Hawkins submits that for those reasons given above, she did not fail to treat the Passenger with respect or dignity and did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct.  In the event that she failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, Ms Hawkins submits that she had a reasonable excuse for doing so.
  1. [85]
    While Mr Davis acknowledged that the Passenger threatened violence against the SNOs, contrary to her submissions, at no time did the Passenger direct threats of sexual or physical violence towards her.  The Passenger's threats of violence were directed at the other SNOs.
  1. [86]
    Mr Davis determined that Ms Hawkins was not directly involved in restraining the Passenger and therefore she could have engaged with the Passenger when his phone rang and considered whether there was a way for the call to be answered without compromising anyone's safety.
  1. [87]
    The Respondent notes Ms Hawkins' submission that allowing the Passenger to answer his phone when it was ringing:

… exposed me, and my colleagues, to a potential allegation of impropriety for reaching into a minor's trouser pocket' and 'in circumstances where police were on their way and would facilitate the Passenger contacting his friends/family in a relatively short time, it was not unreasonable to refuse to answer the Passenger's phone.

  1. [88]
    However, the Respondent says that Ms Hawkins did not make this submission in her show cause response and therefore it could not be taken into account by Mr Davis when making the decision.  The Respondent submits that this submission should not be taken into account in the context of a public service appeal, which is a review of the decision and not an opportunity for a fresh hearing.

Consideration of submissions

  1. [89]
    It is the case that before the Passenger's phone started ringing and the Passenger requested to either be allowed to answer it or that someone else answer it, he had already engaged in a set of behaviours which led the SNOs to consider that he had to be restrained and escorted from the station to the road. I understand Ms Hawkins' submissions regarding the reasons the SNOs may have determined not to answer the Passenger's phone or facilitate him answering it, however there is no evidence that these matters were considered or discussed by the SNOs during the incident when the phone continued to ring while the Passenger was being restrained on the ground.  However, in circumstances where the police were on their way, I do not consider that the failure to allow the Passenger to answer his phone or to see if it was possible to answer it for him was such that it constituted a major failure on Ms Hawkins' behalf.  However, I would observe that that there were ways, even if they may not be accepted by him,  to explain to the Passenger why it was not possible for his phone to be answered at that particular time which may have afforded him respect and dignity in the circumstances.
  1. [90]
    I find that it was not unreasonable for Mr Davis to find that the failure to consider whether it was possible for the phone call to be answered in the circumstances did not align with the Youth Justice Principles.

Conclusion – it was fair and reasonable to substantiate the allegation

  1. [91]
    I accept that the relevant Departmental policy, principles and legislation gave rise to an expectation that Ms Hawkins would have taken steps to make further enquiries of the Passenger before directing him to leave the train and also that she would take steps to seek to have the Passenger repositioned when he was feeling sick.
  1. [92]
    I find that Mr Davis considered Ms Hawkins' responses and that it was open to him to determine that Ms Hawkins had failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her failure to act as expected and that it was 'not infeasible' for her to enquire where the Passenger was travelling and attempt to ascertain if he was affected by a substance.  Further, it was open to Mr Davis to find that Ms Hawkins had a duty to keep the Passenger safe and to expect that she would speak up about her colleagues' failure to reposition the Passenger.
  1. [93]
    I do not find Ms Hawkins' failure to intervene and determine if there was a way for the phone call to be answered without compromising anyone's safety was of the same degree of seriousness as the failure to make enquiries before directing the Passenger to leave the train and the failure to take steps to have the Passenger repositioned when he said he was feeling sick.  However, this does not serve to undermine the decision to substantiate the allegation.
  1. [94]
    On that basis, I find that it was fair and reasonable for Mr Davis to determine that the allegation is substantiated.

Was it fair and reasonable to determine that Allegation One gave rise to a ground for discipline under s 187(1)(g) of the PS Act?

Submissions

  1. [95]
    Ms Hawkins says that there is no justification for deciding that any contravention was sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action in light of the provisions of the PS Act and the Disciplinary Directive, which she says have not been followed.
  1. [96]
    Ms Hawkins says that this is the first disciplinary issue she has encountered in more than ten years with the Department, and it has not arisen out of any deliberate breach of her obligations or wilful misconduct.
  1. [97]
    Ms Hawkins says that Mr Davis has not complied with cl 5.1 and 7.3 of the Disciplinary Directive and that such compliance is a precondition to the taking of any disciplinary action.
  1. [98]
    Ms Hawkins says that the decision does not explain how Mr Davis has assessed her conduct having regard to clauses 5.1(a) and 5.2 of the Discipline Directive.  Ms Hawkins submits that Mr Davis has 'given no, or no meaningful, regard to the fact that here are no previous and/or repeated instances of inappropriate conduct by me' and that 'he has given no, or no meaningful regard to the other matters in clause 5.2'. 
  1. [99]
    Ms Hawkins says that Mr Davis has also 'not explained whether, and if so why, he has formed the view the matter cannot be resolved through management action, which is necessary for him to form the view that the contravention is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action'.  Further, Ms Hawkins says that Mr Davis 'has not articulated any consideration of whether there are more proactive strategies other than disciplinary action, including training and development'.
  1. [100]
    With reference to cl 7.3 of the Discipline Directive, Ms Hawkins says that the decision (and the proposed disciplinary action) is 'precipitous' because:
  1. (a)
    the Decision does not refer to corrupt conduct of a potential criminal offence (clause 7.3(a));
  2. (b)
    the nature of the allegation against me is inconsistent with the examples given where management action is not appropriate (clause 7.3(b))
  3. (c)
    management action would be sufficient to control any risk to health and safety posed by my conduct (clause 7.3(c)) and would alleviate or mitigate the impact of the conduct (clause 7.4(d));
  4. (d)
    I have not been subject to management action previously (clause 7.3(e)); and
  5. (e)
    the contravention is a single isolated incident and there is no pattern of unreasonable behaviour. The Decision provides no reason or explanation as to why management action would be unable to correct my conduct (clause 7.3(f)).
  1. [101]
    Ms Hawkins submits that she 'did treat the Passenger with respect and dignity and in accordance with the Youth Justice Principles and the Code of Conduct' and 'if it is the case that it is found that I did not, I submit that there was a reasonable excuse for that contravention'.
  1. [102]
    Ms Hawkins submits that any contravention of the Code of Conduct is not sufficiently serious enough to warrant disciplinary action as opposed to management action.
  1. [103]
    The Respondent says that Ms Hawkins' substantiated conduct was serious and inappropriate, particularly considering Ms Hawkins was an experienced SNO and had completed the relevant training in appropriate behaviours and exercise of powers.
  1. [104]
    The Respondent submits that Ms Hawkins was aware, or ought to have been aware, from her training as a Departmental employee, that she was expected to comply with relevant policies, procedures and statutory obligations regarding conduct.
  1. [105]
    The Respondent says that Ms Hawkins was required to exercise her powers as an SNO lawfully and with care, demonstrate courtesy and respect for members of the public, including in respect of her communication and actively promote a positive image of public transport and the Department. 
  1. [106]
    The Respondent expected Ms Hawkins to demonstrate the highest level of ethical conduct at all times and to maintain the public's trust and confidence in the Department and says that Ms Hawkins failed to do this.
  1. [107]
    With regard to Ms Hawkins' submission that it would have been more appropriate for her conduct to be dealt with via management action as it was not sufficiently serious and she had not received training or guidance in relation to the YJA, the Respondent says that Mr Davis rejected this submission on the basis that Ms Hawkins had undertaken such training and there were extensive references to the YJA in the training material.  It was on this basis the Mr Davis determined that there was a compelling reason to deal with the conduct through a disciplinary process.
  1. [108]
    The Respondent says that Ms Hawkins' submission that she has never been subject to any complaint or disciplinary process other than the one subject of this appeal is 'plainly incorrect'. The Respondent says that while Ms Hawkins has not been subject to any formal disciplinary action in her employment with the Department, there was an occasion in December 2018 where she was cautioned for her conduct in relation to a direct report.[8]
  1. [109]
    The Department submits that it would not be appropriate for Mr Davis to apply s 186C of the PS Act and the 'Positive Performance Management Principles' when making his decision as the allegation was not purely related to Ms Hawkins' performance in her role but related to conduct that could have resulted in harm to a member of the public (the Passenger).
  1. [110]
    The Respondent says that there are 'several problems' with Ms Hawkins' submission that she ought only be subject to management action, in summary, the Respondent says:
  • The conduct has to be viewed in the context of the Incident, which was referred to the CCC with elements of the Incident being considered potential corrupt conduct (if proven);
  • Ms Hawkins' failure to make reasonable enquiries before directing the Passenger to leave the train resulted in a very severe consequence of the Passenger being subject to excessive force and unnecessary restraint.
  • Ms Hawkins' conduct cannot be viewed in isolation from the totality of the Incident.
  1. [111]
    The Respondent says that Mr Davis' decision to commence the disciplinary process and make disciplinary findings against Ms Hawkins is consistent with the factors to which a decision-maker must have regard in cl 5.2 and 7.1 of the Directive as well as relevant Commission authorities.[9]
  1. [112]
    The Respondent says:[10]
  • Ms Hawkins' conduct was serious and not a minor infringement of the YJA;
  • the incident was a common situation faced by SNOs;[11]
  • Ms Hawkins had received significant training regarding dealing with juveniles;[12]
  • Ms Hawkins conduct created a risk to the health and safety of the Passenger;[13]
  • Ms Hawkins' conduct could have been viewed adversely by members of the public and adversely affected the public's trust and confidence in the Department; and
  • Ms Hawkins has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of her conduct.[14]
  1. [113]
    In response to Ms Hawkins' submission that Mr Davis did not consider whether there were more proactive strategies other than disciplinary action to manage Ms Hawkins' conduct, the Respondent says that management action is intended to be taken as a proactive measure in circumstances where an independent investigation of the conduct is not required.
  1. [114]
    The Respondent says that due to the severity of the incident, it was referred to the CCC and independently investigated by Ashdale.  The Respondent says that Ms Hawkins' conduct was connected to the conduct of several other SNOs and it was not practicable to deal with her separately. The Respondent says that even if management action was the most appropriate way to deal with Ms Hawkins' conduct (which it denies), any management action would not have been more 'proactive' than the disciplinary process that unfolded.
  1. [115]
    The Respondent submits that while it may have been open to Mr Davis to take management action in respect of Ms Hawkins' conduct, it was more appropriate and reasonably open to Mr Davis to commence a disciplinary process and, determine that the allegation was substantiated and that the conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary findings against her and consideration of the proposed disciplinary action.
  1. [116]
    The Respondent submits that the Decision was fair and reasonable, and consistent with the provisions of the Directive and ought not be disturbed by the Commission.

Consideration of submissions

  1. [117]
    I have considered Ms Hawkins' submission that s 186C of the PS Act applies and that the Respondent was required to apply 'positive performance management' principles before taking disciplinary action.  The allegation against Ms Hawkins' arose from her actions pertaining to the incident.  The Respondent deemed the conduct to be potential corrupt conduct (if proven) and a potential a contravention of the relevant standard of conduct arising from the incident rather than an issue strictly regarding her work performance. I do not find that this was a situation where Mr Davis was required to apply positive performance management principles prior to taking disciplinary action.
  1. [118]
    Discipline Directive 14/20 states that Mr Davis should consider a range of factors (cl 5.2) prior to commencing a discipline process. Having reviewed the material available to me, I find that it was open to Mr Davis to consider that Ms Hawkins' conduct may impact on 'the reputation of the public sector'[15] and that the alleged conduct could be reasonably suspected to 'have caused actual harm, or a risk to the health and safety of employees, or other people'.[16]
  1. [119]
    I am satisfied that for the reasons given in the decision and the Respondent's submissions, that per cl 7.2 of the Discipline Directive, Mr Davis considered that 'management action is not likely to address and/or resolve the work performance matter' and that the matter was sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action. 
  1. [120]
    Clause 7.3 states that consideration must be given to whether there are more proactive strategies than disciplinary action, including through training and development and lists matters that must be considered. It appears that Mr Davis considered Ms Hawkins' length of experience in the role and the extensive training she has undertaken since 2012 and her show cause response stating that her conduct should be dealt with via management action.  The decision letter relevantly states:[17]

…

  • I cannot attribute any weight to your submissions that I should deal with your conduct via management action as you say you have never received training or substantive guidance in relation to dealing with juveniles. You say the only guidance you have been provided regarding dealing with juveniles is on pages 51 and 52 of SNOPPM.
  • Firstly, the guidance on these pages of the SNOPPM is more extensive than the section you have quoted and which I have included above on page 11 of this letter.  Secondly, the SNOPPM also refers to considering a passenger's age before deciding on a course of action and dealing with juveniles on pages 28, 47 and 57.  Additionally SNOs are remined of the importance of considering a passenger's age in the OST Course Learner Guide.  You have received training and advice in relation to the Youth Justice amendment in 2018 when the upper age of a juvenile changed from 17 to 18 years of age.  As a part of your training SNOs are also taught about the important of making sure that responsible persons are notified when they are taking certain actions against juveniles as part of youth justice principles and that juveniles are considered vulnerable persons.  Further, during your interview with the investigator you acknowledged that in your training you are told to treat juveniles with respect and dignity.  Lastly, I note that you say you undertook reaccreditation in 2020 and that nowhere in the material provided did it refer to the YJA or the Youth Justice Principles. The relevant material did refer to the YJA and the amendments to it in 2018 in relation to the change of the upper juvenile ago from 17 to 18.
  • I have reviewed your training records which detail that prior to the events in question you had completed a significant amount of training in how to perform your duties including:
  1. a.OST training in August 2012;
  2. b.OST Training in June 2013;
  3. c.OST Training in September 2014;
  4. d.OST Training in March 2015;
  5. e.OST Training on 4 September 2015;
  6. f.OST Training in November 2016;
  7. g.Ways We Work on 17 July 2017;
  8. h.OST Training on 1 August 2017;
  9. i.OST Training on 21 February 2018;
  10. j.OST Training on 7 and 8 October 2018;
  11. k.Ethical Workshop Translink Division on 6 April 2019;
  12. l.QPS De-escalation training on 2 and 3 October 2019;
  13. m.OST Training on 15 and 16 October 2019;
  14. n.WWWYG: Which way would you go? On 30 April 2020; and
  15. o.Ethical Decision Making on 24 February 2021.
  • Dealing with juveniles is covered in your OST training as outlined above.  I am therefore satisfied that you have received extensive training regarding the methods the Department expects you to use in performing your duties, including management of juvenile passengers.
  1. [121]
    For the reasons given above, I find that it was open to Mr Davis to find that the allegation was substantiated and to determine that there were grounds for discipline pursuant to s 187(g) of the PS Act in that Ms Hawkins had contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct in a way sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action, namely the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service and specifically Clause 1.5, 3.1 and 4.1 of the Code.
  1. [122]
    For completeness, I note from the decision and the submissions that Mr Davis proposes to issue Ms Hawkins with a reprimand and has requested Ms Hawkins provide a response to the proposed disciplinary action. Ms Hawkins' representative appears to have  informed the Respondent that Ms Hawkins has no submissions to make with regard to the proposed disciplinary action.  I make no comment regarding the proposed disciplinary action as it is not a matter for this appeal.

Order:

  1. [123]
    I make the following order:

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

Footnotes

[1] Both the Appellant and Respondent set this out in their submissions.

[2] Respondent's submissions filed 13 December 2022, [8].

[3] Correspondence from Mr Graham Davis, General Manager (Passenger Transport Services), Translink to Ms Frances Hawkins dated 11 October 2022, page 1.

[4] Ibid page 9.

[5] Respondent's submissions filed 13 December 2022, Attachment 8.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid [36].

[8] Respondent's submissions [50].

[9] Robynson v State of Queensland [2022] QIRC 244 ('Robynson'); Kereama v State of Queensland [2021] QIRC 343 ('Kereama').

[10] Respondent's submissions filed 13 December 2022 [54].

[11] Kereama (n 9) [67]-[69].

[12] Robynson (n 9) [34]-[35].

[13] Kereama (n 9) [83].

[14] Kereama  (n 9) [70], [81].

[15] Discipline Directive 14/20 cl 5.2(b).

[16] Ibid 5.2(c).

[17] Correspondence from Mr Graham Davis, General Manager (Passenger Transport Services), Translink to Ms Frances Hawkins dated 11 October 2022, pages 14-15.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Hawkins v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Hawkins v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 11

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    17 Jan 2023

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
Kereama v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 343
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 343
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 343
Robynson v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2022] QIRC 244
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 244
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 244

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.