Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Major v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) - [2023] QIRC 113

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

Major v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)[2023] QIRC 113

Major v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)[2023] QIRC 113

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Major v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2023] QIRC 113

PARTIES:

Major, David

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

PSA/2023/16

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Fair treatment appeal

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2023

HEARD AT:

On the papers

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – where appellant applied for an exemption to COVID-19 vaccination requirements – where appellant was granted a temporary exemption on the basis of a medical contraindication – where appellant was advised he needed to provide evidence from a treating specialist medical practitioner before the expiration of his temporary exemption – where appellant did not provide further evidence from a treating specialist medical practitioner – where respondent refused appellants exemption application – where appellant applied for internal review of refusal to grant exemption – where upon review the respondent upheld the original refusal – where decision is fair and reasonable – decision appealed against confirmed

LEGISLATION & OTHER

INSTRUMENTS:

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

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 131, s 289, s 324

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 194

QAS HR Policy Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements cl 2, cl 3, cl 5

QAS HR Procedure – COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements cl 3

CASES:

Brasell-Dellow & Ors v State of Queensland, (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2021] QIRC 356

Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 332

Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170

Higgins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 030

Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320

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

Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 414

Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 002

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr David Major (the Appellant) is employed as a Patient Transport Officer by the State of Queensland - Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS; the Respondent).
  1. [2]
    On 13 September 2021, the Code of Practice and QAS HR Procedure – COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements (the Procedure) was published.
  1. [3]
    The Procedure mandated that particular groups of QAS employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination.[1]
  1. [4]
    Clause 3.6 of the Procedure allowed for employees to apply for an exemption to the mandatory vaccination requirements on the basis of a recognised medical contraindication, genuinely held religious belief or other exceptional circumstances.
  1. [5]
    On 28 September 2021, the Appellant applied for an exemption on the basis of a medical contraindication. 
  1. [6]
    On 31 January 2022, the Procedure was replaced by the QAS HR Policy Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements (the Policy). Clauses 2 – 3 of the Policy mandate that particular groups of QAS employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination.
  1. [7]
    On 1 February 2022, Mr Ray Clarke, Executive Director, Workforce wrote to the Appellant to enquire whether he wished to provide any updated or additional information in support of his original exemption application.
  1. [8]
    On 5 February 2022, the Appellant responded to Mr Clarke's correspondence, advising that his existing application still stood as well as that his family had contracted and recovered from COVID-19.
  1. [9]
    On 18 May 2022, Mr Clarke advised the Appellant his exemption application had been refused for reasons including that the Appellant had not provided evidence to support his claim of a medical contraindication.
  1. [10]
    On 27 May 2022, the Appellant provided a copy of an Australian Immunisation Register immunisation medical exemption form (AIR Form) which he said he would upload to his myGov account. The form noted a temporary exemption until 27 November 2022 due to acute major medical illness.
  1. [11]
    On 30 May 2022, the Appellant requested an internal review of the decision to refuse his exemption application and subsequently advised he was not satisfied with the decision because it did not take into account the new information provided in the AIR Form.
  1. [12]
    On 16 June 2022, QAS granted the Appellant a time-limited exemption until 16 December 2022 and advised the Appellant that if he remained unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination by that date, he was required to provide a further letter from his treating specialist medical practitioner by 2 December 2022. QAS advised the Appellant that if he did not submit any further information by 2 December 2022, a new decision in relation to his exemption application would be based on the information available at the time.
  1. [13]
    On 12 December 2022, the Appellant advised that his doctor was unable to extend his exemption due to a "tightening of the restrictions".
  1. [14]
    On 15 December 2022, Ms Wendy Lowes, A/Executive Director, Workforce wrote to the Appellant advising his application for an exemption had been refused.
  1. [15]
    On 9 January 2023, the Appellant requested a review of Ms Lowes' decision.
  1. [16]
    On 16 January 2023, Mr David Hartley, Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Operations (the decision-maker) confirmed the decision to refuse the Appellant's exemption (the Decision). That is the decision subject of the Form 89 - Appeal notice filed 6 February 2023.

Jurisdiction

The decision subject of this appeal

  1. [17]
    On 1 March 2023, the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) (the PS Act) came into effect. Pursuant to s 289 of the PS Act, the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) is repealed. Section 324 of the PS Act relevantly provides:
  1. (1)
    This section applies if—

(a)before the commencement, a person appealed against a decision under the repealed Act, section 194; and

(b)immediately before the commencement, the appeal had not been decided.

  1. (2)
    From the commencement, the appeal must be heard and decided under chapter 3, part 10.
  1. [18]
    On 6 February 2023, before the commencement of the PS Act, the Appellant filed an appeal against the Decision in the Industrial Registry. Immediately before the commencement of the PS Act, this appeal had not been decided. Therefore, the appeal must be heard and decided under chp 3, pt 10 of the PS Act.
  1. [19]
    Section 131 of the PS Act[2] identifies the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. A "fair treatment decision", i.e., a decision which the Appellant contends is unfair and unreasonable is appealable under s 131(1)(d) of the PS Act. The Appellant indicated in the appeal notice that he is "appealing a fair treatment decision".
  1. [20]
    I accept that the decision to refuse the Appellant's request for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination appropriately falls under the category of a fair treatment decision and it is the Decision that is attached to the Appellant's Form 89 - Appeal notice. Obscurely, in his subsequent submissions, the Appellant states that the decision he contends is not fair and reasonable is:

The decision to discipline me based on the fact that I will not receive two vaccinations against covid-19 with regard to the fact that I have had a previous detrimental response to a QAS mandated vaccine, that being the flu vaccine.

As well as the fact that I have been placed on leave without pay and have been told I'm not fit or able to perform my duties due to this fact.

  1. [21]
    The Appeal Notice pertains to the Decision of Mr David Hartley dated 16 January 2023 that confirms the decision to refuse the Appellant's request for an exemption. That Decision is not a disciplinary decision, nor is it a decision regarding suspension without pay. If the Appellant sough to appeal those other decisions he refers to, he ought to have done so within the 21-day timeframe. The Appellant did annex to his submissions a notice to show cause dated 2 February 2023 in relation to allegations made against him, however that correspondence did not contain a decision to discipline. Further, that correspondence is not the subject of this appeal as it was issued after the appeal was filed. My consideration will turn to the Decision annexed to the Form 89 - Appeal notice only.
  1. [22]
    Section 134 of the PS Act allows for the appeal to be heard and decided by the Commission. 
  1. [23]
    Section 133(d) of the PS Act prescribes that a public sector employee aggrieved by a fair treatment decision may appeal. The Appellant meets that requirement.
  1. [24]
    I am satisfied that the Decision is able to be appealed.

Timeframe for appeal

  1. [25]
    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 Form 89 – Appeal notice regarding when the decision was received.
  1. [26]
    The Decision was given on 16 January 2023 and the appeal was filed on 6 February 2023. Therefore, I am satisfied the Appellant filed the appeal within the required timeframe.

What decisions can the Commission make?

  1. [27]
    Section 562C of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:
  • confirm the decision appealed against;
  • 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
  • set the decision aside and substitute another decision.

Consideration

Appeal principles

  1. [28]
    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. [29]
    The appeal is not conducted by way of re–hearing, but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at and the associated decision–making process.
  1. [30]
    Findings made by the decision-maker, which are reasonably open to them, 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. [31]
    The relevant principles in considering whether a decision is 'unreasonable' were enunciated by Ryan J in Gilmour v Waddell & Ors (emphasis added, citations removed):[3]

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. [32]
    I issued a Directions Order on 7 February 2023 requiring the parties to file written submissions.
  1. [33]
    I have carefully considered all submissions but have determined not to approach the writing of this decision by summarising the entirety of those arguments. 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 this appeal. 

Relevant provisions

  1. [34]
    Clause 1 of the Policy relevantly provides:

The COVID-19 virus has been shown to disproportionately affect healthcare workers, including paramedics, and health support staff and poses a significant risk to Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) patients, and the broader community.

In recognition of the risks posed by the virus, as well as workplace health and safety obligations incumbent upon both the organisation and employees, this policy requires QAS employees who are identified as being in high risk groups to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Prospective and existing QAS employees subject to these requirements have been identified based on the following risk profile:

  • They are working in an area with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients or an area that a COVID-19 patient may enter.
  • They are coming into direct or indirect contact with people who work in an area with COVID-19 patients or an area that a suspected or actual COVID-19 patient may enter.
  • They are unable to observe public health requirements (e.g. physical distancing, working in areas of high population density, rapid donning/doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) in emergent situations).
  • They have the potential to expose patients, clients, other staff or the broader community to the virus (e.g. occupying shared spaces such as lifts, cafeterias, vehicles, car parks, with people working with suspected or actual COVID-19 patients) or to be exposed to the virus due to the nature of their work.
  1. [35]
    Clause 5 of the Policy relevantly provides:

Where an existing employee is unable to be vaccinated they are required to complete an exemption application form.

Exemptions will be considered in the following circumstances:

  • Where an existing employee has a recognised medical contraindication;
  • Where an existing employee has a genuinely held religious belief;
  • Where another exceptional circumstance exists.

If an existing employee is granted an exemption, they do not have to comply with clause 3 or 4 of this policy.

Consideration

  1. [36]
    When the Appellant did not initially comply with the Directions Order issued on 7 February 2023, the Industrial Registry gave him the opportunity to explain his non-compliance. In response, the Appellant filed a bundle of correspondence between himself and QAS most of which was dated prior to the Decision. In response, the Industrial Registry on behalf of Chambers emailed the Appellant, advising:

We draw your attention to the Directions Order issued 7 February 2023 that required you to "file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondent, written submissions (of no more than five pages in length and any relevant attachments) in further support of the Appeal Notice".

What Commissioner McLennan now has before her is several attachments but no submissions. Are you seeking an extension of time in which to file written submissions or is that the extent of what you intend to provide in support of your email?

It is not for the Commission to make your case for you. In taking the action of initiating a Public Service Appeal, you are essentially arguing that a decision is not fair and reasonable. So to be clear, written submissions should address:

  1. What decision do you contend is not fair and reasonable?
  2. Why is that decision unfair and unreasonable?
  1. [37]
    The Appellant provided a response to that email on 21 February 2023 and I have taken those submissions into consideration.
  1. [38]
    The Appellant submits the Decision is unfair and unreasonable on the basis that:
  • he had a severe reaction to an influenza vaccination;
  • evidence suggests the vaccination is ineffective and is risky for those with a history of adverse reactions;
  • he has natural immunity after contracting COVID-19;
  • he cannot give informed consent;
  • he does not have all the information from the manufacturer;
  • he is being punished for not wanting to have a medical procedure; and
  • QAS have not offered any other option for work.
  1. [39]
    I will deal with each of the abovementioned matters under the following categories. 

Medical contraindication

  1. [40]
    The 'Employee COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form' provides:

An employee will be considered to have a medical contraindication for the purposes of applying for an exemption where they are unable to be vaccinated due to a recognised medical contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccine as outlined in a letter from their treating specialist medical practitioner.

…

 An employee is required to provide a medical certificate from their treating specialist medical practitioner certifying:

  • that the employee is unable to receive any COVID-19 vaccination because they have a recognised medical contraindication to the vaccine
  • whether the medical contraindication will permanently or temporarily prevent COVID-19 vaccination
  • if the medical contraindication is temporary in nature, when the employee may be able to receive the COVID-19 vaccination.

It is important to be aware that exemption requests will be considered in accordance with Queensland Health's obligations and that approval will be only provided in exceptional circumstances.

  1. [41]
    Through the exemption application form, the Appellant was put on notice that his request would be "considered in accordance with Queensland Health's obligations and that approval will be only provided in exceptional circumstances."
  1. [42]
    The AIR Form dated 25 May 2022 temporarily exempted the Appellant from COVID-19 vaccinations until 27 November 2022. On 16 June 2022, Mr John Hammond, A/Assistant Commissioner, Strategic Operations, advised the Appellant that the additional information provided in the AIR Form warranted further consideration. Within that correspondence, Mr Hammond noted the AIR Form does not provide a permanent COVID-19 vaccination exemption and determined to accept the AIR Form as evidence of the Appellant's temporary inability to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. Mr Hammond granted the Appellant a time-limited exemption until 16 December 2022 and advised that should the Appellant be unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination prior to the expiration of that time, he is required provide a further letter from a treating specialist medical practitioner certifying his inability to receive the COVID-19 vaccination due to a recognised medical contraindication to the vaccine by 2 December 2022.
  1. [43]
    The Appellant was clearly advised that in the event he did not provide any further information by 2 December 2022, a new decision would be based on the information available at that time.
  1. [44]
    On 11 November 2022, QAS emailed the Appellant with a courtesy reminder that he is required to provide further information by 2 December 2022 should he be unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccination prior to the end of his time-limited exemption. Then, on 9 December 2022, after the deadline of providing further information, QAS sent a further courtesy reminder in light of the fact they had not received any further information from the Appellant. QAS afforded the Appellant an extension of time to 12 December 2022. There was subsequent correspondence between QAS and the Appellant with the Appellant seemingly not understanding what was required of him. Ultimately the Appellant responded on 12 December 2022, advising "My doctor is unable to extend my exemption due to a tightening of the restrictions." It is unclear to me what that means, but in any event, I draw from that comment that the Appellant was unable to obtain evidence from a treating specialist medical practitioner certifying that he had a medical contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccine.
  1. [45]
    In my view, QAS went above and beyond in giving the Appellant ample opportunity to provide evidence of a medical contraindication beyond his temporary exemption and then repeatedly providing courtesy reminders. It is clear that QAS was open to learn more about the Appellant's medical concerns with a view to taking into consideration the opinion of a medical specialist.
  1. [46]
    I find it was open to the decision-maker to determine that the Appellant should not be granted an exemption because he did not provide evidence to support that he is unable to receive the COVID-19 vaccination from the expiry of his temporary exemption. That evidence was required at the very least. The Appellant stated that he had contracted COVID-19 and therefore had natural immunity – that statement is not evidence from a treating specialist medical practitioner certifying a medical contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, the Appellant's conflicting research or opinions on vaccine efficacy and risk is not evidence from a treating specialist medical practitioner certifying a medical contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccine.
  1. [47]
    The key factors relevant to that determination include the requirement to ensure the readiness of the health system in responding to COVID-19, protection of the lives of employees, patients and the broader community. That was clearly conveyed in the original exemption refusal and reasonably accepted in the Decision.
  1. [48]
    I acknowledge the Appellant's health concerns, however the simple fact of the matter is that he has been unable to identify a medical specialist who was willing to certify those concerns as a legitimate contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccine. In the absence of such certification, it was reasonable for the decision-maker to reject the exemption application.

Coercion and consent

  1. [49]
    The Appellant argues that the Decision is unfair and unreasonable because it amounts to coercion to receive a medical treatment under threat of punishment. The Appellant also refers to the concept of informed consent.
  1. [50]
    I am not satisfied that the Appellant has been coerced or deprived of the ability to freely consent with respect to receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. The Appellant may freely choose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccination - it is not being forced upon him. The alternative to consenting to the vaccination is electing not to receive it – the Appellant has freely made that decision. There is no obligation that the Appellant continue to work for QAS.
  1. [51]
    The issue of consent was also considered in the matter of Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard[4] where it was confirmed that consent is not vitiated by it being given in response to a condition of continued employment. I accept that view.

Alternative options for work

  1. [52]
    With respect to the Appellant's argument regarding alternative options for work not being considered, I note that in correspondence dated 15 December 2022, Ms Lowes advised the Appellant:

I have consulted with your Regional Assistant Commissioner in an attempt to find a suitable alternate role for you to undertake whilst you are unable to work in your substantive role.

I am advised that at present, there are no suitable roles available which do not require vaccination against COVID-19. As you are currently unable to perform your substantive role and there are no suitable alternate roles for you to undertake, your current work arrangements remain unchanged.

  1. [53]
    That excerpt suggests alternative arrangements had been appropriately considered.
  1. [54]
    Even if parts of the Appellant's role could be conducted remotely, as I found in Radev, there will inevitably be times where the Appellant is required to attend various locations and intermingle with other staff members and patients in order to fulfill his duties.[5] I appreciate that the positions of Mr Radev and the Appellant are different but consider that the same principle applies in both circumstances.
  1. [55]
    In Radev, the appellant's workplace was the Brisbane Airport and I reached the conclusion that airports "are renowned for being particularly risky locations with respect to transmission of COVID-19".[6] The same can clearly be said for hospitals, ambulances and the various sites that QAS employees visit. It is evident that the Appellant undertakes an important role in an important area that has been covered by the Policy for the safety of the Appellant, his colleagues and the broader community.
  1. [56]
    In Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), Industrial Commissioner Hartigan (as she then was) concluded the following:

I am satisfied the Department considered alternative working arrangements for Mr Tilley. I consider that the view formed that there were no alternative working arrangements available for Mr Tilley to perform was a decision open to be made, having regard to the Department's responsibility to manage the risks associated with COVID-19 in the workplace which is frequented by employees, patients and the broader community. [7]

  1. [57]
    In my view, an alternative arrangement is not an operationally feasible option in the Appellant's role and is therefore not a realistic circumstance, let alone an exceptional circumstance warranting exemption approval. I accept the Respondent's submission that temporary alternative working arrangements are not a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the direction to be vaccinated. On that basis, I find that the Respondent's consideration of alternative arrangements do not render the Decision unfair and unreasonable. 

Other matters

  1. [58]
    The Appellant's submissions referred to various other matters. In Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), Industrial Commissioner Dwyer stated:[8]

[29]  The commission has now dealt with a great many appeals of this nature. Consequently, a reliable body of jurisprudence has been developed dealing with increasingly common themes in the arguments advanced by appellants like Ms Elliott, who have not complied with a vaccine mandate applicable in their respective departments of employment.

[30]  Notwithstanding that these decisions are available publicly on the Queensland Courts website, appellants continue to file these appeals challenging the validity of directions for them to be vaccinated and relying on arguments such as 'vaccines are not safe' or 'mandates are coercion' or 'human rights infringements' or 'risk assessments were not provided' or 'consultation did not occur' et cetera.

[31]  It is more than apparent that the vast majority of such appellants have no regard for the reported decisions or if they do, they simply press on, expecting that somehow the outcome will be different in their case. With the exception of a small number of decisions returned to departments for technical inadequacies, no appellant has succeeded on the increasingly tedious suite of arguments of this nature.[9]

[32]  The continued use of the commission's resources to receive and repeatedly dispense with the same arguments cannot be in the public interest. In circumstances where there is now a reliable body of decisions dispensing with similar arguments, it is my view that appellants seeking to reagitate settled arguments should be required to justify why they ought to be heard.

  1. [59]
    The Appellant's arguments similarly traverse many of the consistently rejected positions presented in previous matters and so I do not intend to engage in a detailed analysis of each and every argument.
  1. [60]
    In response to the remaining matters, I also refer to Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) in which Industrial Commissioner Hartigan (as she then was) concluded the following:
  1. [39]
    The other matters, referred to above, raised by Mr Tilley form the basis of his personal preference not to receive a vaccine. I do not consider the matters relied on by Mr Tilley result in Directive 12/21 being unreasonable. In this regard, cl 6 of Directive 12/21 identifies the risk posed by the virus to staff, patients and the broader community and the Directive is aimed at minimising such a risk. I consider that to be reasonable. [10]
  1. [61]
    I similarly conclude that the remaining matters raised by the Appellant evince his personal preference not to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. I do not consider those matters render the Decision unfair or unreasonable.
  1. [62]
    The Department's "Employee COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form" states (emphasis added):

In extremely limited circumstances, an employee may also use this form to detail other exceptional circumstances which preclude them from meeting the COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In this circumstance:

  • Vaccine hesitancy and conscientious objection, by themselves, are not considered exceptional circumstances.
  • Some other extenuating circumstances must exist.

Where this can be demonstrated, the employee's circumstances will be considered on an individual basis in accordance with Queensland Health's and QAS's legislative obligations and industrial arrangements however limited exemptions will be granted.

  1. [63]
    Seeking an exemption because one is concerned of an adverse reaction is not an unusual or extraordinary circumstance. The Appellant has also raised several issues with the accuracy and quality of evidence behind the COVID-19 vaccine. Again, the issue for the Appellant is that his concerns are not 'exceptional' and on that basis, the Respondent had a fair and reasonable cause to refuse his exemptions request.
  1. [64]
    Vaccine hesitancy is not itself uncommon and it may stem from a range of reasons. The Appellant has presented many arguments that are just that - they are not "exceptional circumstances" warranting an exemption.

Conclusion

  1. [65]
    The Appellant presented various reasons for why he contends his exemption application should have been accepted and why the refusal was not fair or reasonable. I have considered those submissions and conclude that the reasons for refusal were reasonably justified on the evidence before the decision-maker.
  1. [66]
    The Decision set out evidence in support of the ultimate conclusion to refuse the Appellant's exemption request.
  1. [67]
    I am satisfied the Decision included intelligible justification following consideration of relevant matters.
  1. [68]
    I order accordingly.

Order

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

Footnotes

[1] QAS HR Procedure – COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements cl 3.3.2.

[2] Equivalent provision in the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) was s 194.

[3] [2019] QSC 170, [207]-[210], citing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, [63]-[76].

[4] [2021] NSWSC 1320.

[5] [2021] QIRC 414, [54].

[6] Ibid.

[7] [2022] QIRC 002.

[8] [2022] QIRC 332.

[9] See for example: Brasell-Dellow & Ors v State of Queensland, (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2021] QIRC 356; Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 002; Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 039; Higgins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 030; Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119; Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215; Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 091; Barbagallo v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 195; McPaul v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 175; Knight v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 283; Brown v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 312; Godwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 240; Lamb v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 237. There are numerous others. 

[10] [2022] QIRC 002.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Major v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Major v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 113

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    McLennan IC

  • Date:

    24 Apr 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
Barbagallo v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 195
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 195
Brasell-Dellow v State of Queensland, (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 356
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 356
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 356
Brown v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 312
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 312
Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 215
Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 91
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 91
Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 332
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 332
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 332
Gilmour v Waddell [2019] QSC 170
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 170
Godwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 240
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 240
Higgins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 30
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 30
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 30
Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] NSWSC 1320
Cite 2 - [2021] NSWSC 1320
Knight v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 283
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 283
Lamb v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 237
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 237
McPaul v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 175
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 175
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
Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 414
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 414
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 414
Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 39
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 39
Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 119
Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 2
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 2
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 2
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 2
Cite 4 - [2022] QIRC 2

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.