Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Reimers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2023] QIRC 242

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

Reimers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 242

Reimers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 242

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Reimers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 242

PARTIES:

Reimers, Linda

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

PSA/2022/969

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – appeal against a decision taken under a directive

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2023

MEMBER:

Power IC

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDER:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – appellant directed to attend independent medical examination – whether the decision complied with Directive 10/20 Independent Medical Examinations – decision fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), ch 11, pt 6, div 4, ss 562B and 562C

Public Sector Act 2023 (Qld), ch 3 pt 8 div 5, ss 101, 103, 104, and 131

Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld)

Directive 10/20 Independent Medical Examinations, cls 5.5, and 8

CASES:

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245

Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209

Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

APPEARANCES:

Mr J.S. Reimers, for the Appellant.

Ms M.J. Southwell and Ms M.L. Saxby, for the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Linda Reimers ('the Appellant') is employed as a Team Leader for the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') in the Confirmation Centre, Critical Care and Clinical Support Services at Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital  within the Metro North Hospital and Health Service ('MNHHS').
  1. [2]
    The Appellant appeals a decision ('the decision') of Dr Glen Kennedy, previous Acting Executive Director MNHHS directing the Appellant to attend a medical assessment and submitting to an Independent Medical Examination ('IME').
  1. [3]
    The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision in the Industrial Registry prior to the commencement of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'). In accordance with s 324, the appeal must be decided under chp 3, pt 10 of the PS Act.

Appeal principles

  1. [4]
    Section 562B(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the section applies to a public service appeal made to the Commission. Section 562B(2) provides that the Commission must decide the appeal by reviewing the decision appealed against.  Section 562B(3) provides that the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.
  1. [5]
    The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.[1] Because the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[2] An appeal under chapter 11, part 6, division 4 of the IR Act is not by way of rehearing,[3] but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision making process associated therewith.
  1. [6]
    The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[4] The issue for determination, therefore, is whether the internal review decision was fair and reasonable. Findings which are reasonably open to the decision maker are not expected to be disturbed on appeal.

What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make?

  1. [7]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Industrial Commissioner may:
  1. confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or
  1. set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Legislative framework

  1. [8]
    Chapter 3, part 8, division 5 of the PS Act provides the basis to direct an employee to attend an IME on the basis of mental or physical incapacity.
  1. [9]
    Section 103 of the PS Act provides:

103 Application of division

This division applies to a public sector employee if—

  1. the employee is absent from duty or the employee’s chief executive is reasonably satisfied the employee is not performing the employee’s duties satisfactorily; and
  1. the chief executive reasonably suspects that the employee’s absence or unsatisfactory performance is caused by mental or physical illness or disability.
  1. [10]
    Section 104 of the PS Act provides:

104Chief executive may require medical examination

The employee’s chief executive may—

  1. appoint a doctor to examine the employee and give the chief executive a written report on the examination; and
  2. require the employee to submit to the medical examination.
  1. [11]
    Section 109 of the PS Act provides that the Commissioner may make a directive providing for matters relevant to how part 8 is to be applied in relation to public sector employees and that in acting under part 8, a chief executive must comply with any such relevant directive. The relevant directive is Directive 10/20 Independent Medical Examinations ('the Directive').

Background

  1. [12]
    The Respondent provided a background to this matter that is summarised below.
  1. [13]
    On 11 November 2019, the Appellant was invited to attend a meeting to discuss concerns regarding her work performance and determine how the workplace could support the Appellant in relation to these concerns.
  1. [14]
    On 18 November 2019, the Appellant commenced a period of sick leave and has been continuously absent from the workplace due to a medical condition.
  1. [15]
    Subsequently, the Appellant provided medical certificates, with the majority stating that the Appellant is 'suffering from a medical condition' and is 'unfit for work'.
  1. [16]
    In November 2020, Ms Karina Forster, Acting Manager Administration Services, Critical Care and Clinical Support Services contacted the Appellant to seek further advice from the Appellant's treating doctor to enable the workplace to commence facilitating and supporting the Appellant's return to work.
  1. [17]
    On 25 January 2021, the Appellant provided a report from Dr Hannah Maher, General Practitioner who advised that the Appellant had been diagnosed with a 'Major Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder' which was in Dr Maher's view secondary to 'severe workplace bullying'.
  1. [18]
    Dr Maher advised that she believes the Appellant would make a full recover, provided she did not work with the people who 'allegedly' bullied the Appellant.
  1. [19]
    Consequently, advice was sought from Dr Maher as to whether it was reasonable for Ms Forster to contact the Appellant to discuss the nature of the allegations of bullying. This was supported by Dr Maher. The Appellant advised Ms Forster that she would be submitting a formal grievance in relation to the alleged bullying. However, to date no formal grievance has been received from the Appellant.
  1. [20]
    On 18 November 2021, a meeting was held with the Appellant, Ms Forster, Ms Kate Dickson (previous Acting Director of Outpatients), Mr Colin Smyth (Human Resource Manager) and Ms Lisa Pinese (Principal Human Resources Business Partner) to discuss the Appellant's return to work. The Respondent summarised that in the meeting, the Appellant -
  • provided examples of instances where she had felt bullied and she was informed that this was information that she should provide in her grievance;
  • was advised that concerns had been raised regarding her by staff members from the Confirmation Centre and that she would be provided with a right of reply;
  • stated she felt she was ready to return to work and that she needed to financially; and
  • was provided with an option of applying for meritorious sick leave, which, if approved would provide an additional 13 weeks of sick leave.
  1. [21]
    The Respondent submits that during the discussion, it was confirmed that the Appellant would not be reporting to the staff members that she alleged had bullied her upon her return, however, as these staff members were temporarily relieving in other roles, they would be returning to their roles in the future. Following this meeting, the Appellant continued to be absent from the workplace on various forms of leave.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [22]
    The Appellant provides the following reasons for the appeal, in summary:

I am appealing a decision which has the potential to cause wrongful detriment, up to and including dismissal from my employment of 26 years. The appellant acknowledges that the decision was made in good faith, on the basis of information provided by others, and was on the face of it compliant with the act.

Unfortunately, the information provided represented serious and unconscionable breaches of the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994. As such the decision cannot stand, and be in accord with principles of natural justice, fair treatment or stated Government Policy.

The decision is not subject to appeal under the provisions of fair treatment, as it falls under Chapter 5, Section 7 (174) (a) and (b), 175). However, no decision based on third party malice can go unchallenged in a just system, hence invoking the Public Sector Ethics Ac 1994.

Linda has been directed to attend an "Independent Medical Examination" under section 175 of the Public Service Act 2008", as per section 174 (a) & (b).

This is a high stakes decision, as it can lead to termination of employment. As such, the decision must be defensible – as fair, just and reasonable.

There is no suggestion of impropriety by A/ED Dr Kennedy, as he can only act on the information provided to him. It will be shown that the information provided to him as the basis of the decision was, biased and unreliable. For a start:

  1. Linda's still absent from work due to the wrongful and unreasonable behaviour of management, subsequent to Linda's lost time injury, regardless of the initial cause of Linda's absence.
  2. The A/ED Dr Kennedy cannot make a reasonable unbiased decision on the information provided to him.
  3. Therefore any decision to requiring Linda's attendance for medical assessment is unreliable and not defensible.
  4. The Medical Assessor cannot make an accurate unbiased assessment or diagnosis on the bases of the information provided to them.
  5. Therefore any assessment or prognosis is unreliable

…

Submissions

  1. [23]
    The Commission issued a Directions Order calling for submissions from both parties following receipt of the appeal notice.

Appellant's Submissions

  1. [24]
    The Appellant filed extensive material in support of the appeal traversing a number of employment issues arising prior to the decision. The submissions are broadly summarised as follows:
  • The requirements of the PS Act are not met as the Appellant's continued absence is due to several instances of unreasonable and unconscionable management behaviour, in relation to the opportunities and attempts to return to work.
  • The background information supplied to the decision-making office and prospective examining medical practitioner, represented an egregious, detrimental misrepresentation of events.
  • The meeting was 'an ambush' with the obvious aim of distressing the Appellant which included 'monstering' the appellant with some of the same baseless, and unsupported accusations and assertations that were the subject of the nominated factors.
  • The record of meeting was a falsification of events, and a complaint was made immediately to the HR delegates present about Ms Kate Dickson's conduct in the meeting and the falsification of the file note.
  • Neither the Appellant or Ms Kate Dickson responded at all in any way, either to refute the allegation, or in support of the allegation.
  • Similar threats have been made without any grievances forthcoming for nearly five years with 'no right of reply, indication of who, what or why'.
  • Ms Roslyn Hollet wrongfully liaised with the Qsuper claims officer with regard to Qsuper's wholistic return to work and rehabilitation policy.
  • There was no possibility of an appropriate rehabilitation plan or suitable return to work pathway being developed/offered. Therefore, no return to work was possible at that time which would cause 'extreme financial and emotional hardship'.
  • Given that the appellant has attempted to return to work, with a medical clearance, had no opportunity for a proper rehabilitation and return to work when on income protection and the grossly inaccurate information supplied to the decision make and prospective medical examiner.  An unrestricted clearance to return to work as of 23 January 2023.
  1. [25]
    The Appellant further submits that:
  • The decision is prejudicial with regard to a separate ongoing appeal WC/2020/169 pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).
  • The Appellant submits that the Respondent has engaged in breaches of the following:
  1. The Code of Conduct – Numerous breaches of policy and legislation (including falsification of records of meetings & apparent collusion).
  2. QH – POL – 113 (Ethics policy) – Dishonest conduct.
  3. QH-GDL-113-1 (Conflict of interest guideline)
  4. QH-POL-266 (Harassment policy) –18/11/21 return to work meeting
  5. QH-POL-401 (HS & well being policy framework)
    1. In particular QH-IMP-401-5 (Workplace rehabilitation standard) – wrongful liaison with the Qsuper claims officer,
  6. QH-POL-210 (Reasonable adjustment policy) – Failure to make reasonable adjustment
  7. QH-POL-101 (Human rights discrimination policy):
    1. Reputation (false and unsubstantiated assertions regarding behaviour and performance)
    2. Indirect discrimination (no reasonable adjustment)
    3. Attempt to deny Justice (denial of resources to have quality professional representation.

…

  1. Potentially racial discrimination (the appellant is Australian born, of Hong Kong Heritage, She has been belittled By RH & CM for imperfect grammar when of NESB)

Respondent's Submissions

  1. [26]
    The Respondent filed submissions in response to the appeal, summarised as follows:
  • The Respondent submits the conditions of the PS Act have been satisfied and the decision to direct the Appellant submit to an IME was made in accordance with the Directive and Queensland Health Policy.
  • The Respondent submits the decision to direct the Appellant to attend an IME was fair and reasonable having regard to the evidence that was available to the decision maker (the authorised delegate) at the time.
  • His Honour Merrell DP in Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209 provided a sound guide for the formation of a reasonable suspicion as contemplated by PS Act which included considerations upon objective examination of relevant material and that the reasonable suspicion should be placed on a spectrum between certainty and irrationality.
  • This can be seen in Dr Kennedy's considerations and grounds for his decision to direct the Appellant to an IME detailed in his letter to the Appellant.
  • Furthermore, the delegate considers the purpose of the IME is to obtain medical advice to better understand the nature and extent of the Appellant medical condition and her ability to perform her duties as a Confirmation Centre Team Leader (including any reasonable adjustments).
  • The decision provided information stating the Appellant could seek a review of the decision, including seeking a request for internal review to Adjunct Professor Jackie Hanson, Chief Executive, MNHHS or alternatively, lodging an appeal with the QIRC.
  • The decision provided the Appellant with at least 28 days' notice for her to attend the IME however the Respondent confirms this has been cancelled pending the outcome of this Appeal.
  • Within paragraph 1.2 of the Appellant's submission, the Appellant asserts that the decision to direct the Appellant to submit to a medical assessment "cannot be valid, reliable, reasonable, unbiased or defensible." The Respondent’s brief responses to the Appellant's reasons for this statement is as follows:

1.2.1)… The Appellant has been requested to provide the particulars of the alleged bullying on many occasions however, to date, further details of the allegations have not been supplied. The Respondent submits these further details would not be relevant to the delegates considerations of ensuring the conditions of sections 174 and 175 of the PS Act and the Directive have been met.

1.2.2)The Respondent submits that the background information supplied to Dr Kennedy and Dr Pala Valappil (which was also provided to the Appellant at that time) was relevant to his decision making and did not misrepresent the events of this matter. Dr Kennedy was supplied with information provided by both Dr Maher and the workplace.

I.2.3)The Respondent submits that the purpose of directing the Appellant to attend an IME is to gain further information in determining how best to support the employee and does not represent a pre-determined outcome. Dr Kennedy makes specific reference to Ms Forster's attempts in March 2022 to gain further medical information directly from the Appellant's treating practitioner prior to requiring the Appellant submit to an IME, however the Appellant has not provided the additional information.

  • In paragraph 2 of the Appellant's submissions, the Appellant makes a number of statements regarding their assertion that the requirements of the PS Act have not been met. The Respondent makes the following submissions in response:

21.1The Respondent acknowledges that the Appellant was cleared to return to work by Dr Maher on 15 November 2021. On 16 November 2021, Ms Forster and the Appellant agreed the Appellant would return to work on 18 November 2021 via email. On 17 November 2021, the Appellant requested to delay her return to work until the 22 November 2021. The Appellant remained absent from the workplace and provided a medical certificate on 16 December 2022, covering the period 18 November 2021 to 18 February 2022.

21.2The Respondent submits that the purpose of the meeting dated 18 November 2021 was to discuss the Appellant return to work and put in place reasonable adjustments so she would not report to the staff members she alleged had bullied her and the most recent medical advice provided by Dr Maher. The Respondent refutes the Appellant's assertion that the aim of the meeting was to distress the Appellant nor the statement that the file note documenting the meeting was falsified. It is standard practice for MNH to meet with employees who have been absent from work for a significant period to discuss their return to work in order to support them in the workplace. The meeting was not recorded and therefore a recording could not be provided to the Appellant. A copy of the file note documenting the meeting was provided to the Appellant on 22 November 2021.

21.3The Respondent submits that the Appellant's statements regarding the "interference by Roslyn Hollet, with qsuper wholistic return to work process" are separate to the decision to direct Appellant to attend an IME and as detailed in the Respondent's submissions, the Appellant has been invited to provide the details of her grievance however this has not been provided to date.

21.4The Appellant's submissions attach a medical certificate dated 6 January 2023 which states Appellant has been cleared to return to work on 23 January 2023. As this is provided following the decision made by the delegate, it did not form part of the information available to the delegate at the time of his decision and therefore not relevant to the decision being appealed.

  • The Respondent submits the decision made by the delegate was fair and reasonable at the time and in accordance with the requirements of the PS Act, the Directive, departmental procedures, and Human Resources delegations.

Appellant's Further Submissions

  1. [27]
    The Appellant filed further submissions on 27 January 2023, summarised as follows:
  • The Appellant has already acknowledged in the application, and grounds for appeal that:

The delegate made the decision in good faith, and that the decision would be a fair and reasonable decision, in accord with Directive 10/20 and Queensland health policy (QH-POL-170), on the basis of the information supplied to the decision maker Dr Kennedy. It is still contended that the information supplied to the delegate was not a complete, accurate and truthful account of events and circumstances, as they pertain to the decision.

  • The matter is sub-judice as it is subject to a current ongoing appeal before the QIRC (WC: 2020/169)
  • The Appellant felt the request for further advice from her treating doctor to enable the workplace to support the Appellant’s return to work was not made in good faith, on the basis of previous experience and therefore did not authorise release.
  • In the meeting "concerns" were framed as staff lodging grievances in the Appellant's absences. The meeting was later terminated with Ms Smythe stating that it was clearly detrimental to the Appellant’s welfare.
  • Meritorious leave requires demonstrating meritorious service. Ms Smythe directed managers to supply any requested information for this purpose.
  • Every effort was made to discourage and disparage the Appellant when they had a clearance and willingness to return to work, in November 2021, ergo the requirements of the PS act have not been met.
  • When relevant material is omitted, re-framed or falsified, there can only be a high degree of uncertainty/unreliability.
  • The Appellant attempted to return to work 18 November 2021, decision made October 2022, therefore current absence from 18/11/21 onward was not due to original medical condition, but management's unreasonable action/behaviour.
  • Employment history incomplete, and "relevant information" is demonstrably false (The respondent has refused or ignored all requests for administrative release of information).
  • The employer has the nominated factors detailing the allegations, and the management response showing verifiable lies, omissions and evasions, which they have the ability to prove due to the access to all files, statistics etc.
  • The Appellant maintains that employees of the workplace have misrepresented events, to serve their own interests.

Consideration

  1. [28]
    The question for determination in this matter is whether the decision under the Directive to direct the Appellant to attend an IME was fair and reasonable.
  1. [29]
    The Appellant's reference to the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) is misconceived. An appeal of this nature can only be brought pursuant to s 131(1)(b) of the PS Act.
  1. [30]
    The basis upon which an employee can be directed to attend an IME is found in Chapter 3, part 8, division 5 of the PS Act.
  1. [31]
    In circumstances where an employee is absent from duty and the chief executive 'reasonably suspects' that the employee's absence is cause by mental or physical illness or disability, the relevant section applies pursuant to s 103 of the PS Act. 
  1. [32]
    In these circumstances, s 104 of the PS Act provides that the chief executive may appoint a doctor to examine the employee and give the chief executive a written report on the examination and require the employee to submit to the medical examination.
  1. [33]
    The Directive provides at cl 8 that an appeal may be sought on the basis the decision does not satisfy the conditions of the current s 103 of the PS Act. This is the only ground of appeal provided in the Directive.
  1. [34]
    The decision outlined the history of the Appellant's absences from the workplace from and the reason for such absences outlined in various medical certificates which identify that the Appellant was 'suffering from a medical condition' and that she is 'unfit for work'. The decision also referred to consideration of Dr Maher’s report advising that the Appellant's main diagnosis was Major Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety Disorder. following consideration. This evidence formed a sound basis upon which Dr Kennedy could form a reasonable suspicion.
  1. [35]
    In Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)[5] Deputy President Merrell considered the formation of a reasonable suspicion as contemplated by the PS Act. These considerations included objective examination of relevant material, with 'reasonable suspicion' placed on a spectrum between certainty and irrationality.
  1. [36]
    The decision to direct the Appellant to attend an IME demonstrated consideration of relevant material, including the medical certificates, the report of Dr Maher and the Appellant’s employment history.
  1. [37]
    The decision to require the Appellant to attend an IME was provided to the Appellant giving 28 days' notice of the IME appointment as required under cl 5.5 of the Directive. The decision included information advising the Appellant of her right to seek an internal review of the decision or alternatively to file an appeal with the QIRC.
  1. [38]
    A substantial part of the Appellant's submissions relate to allegations of bullying conduct in the workplace and alleged interference by Ms Hollet with respect to the Appellant's QSuper claim. These allegations are not relevant to the considerations of whether the requirements of s 101 of the PS Act have been met. There are other forums in which these allegations may be ventilated, however they do not form part of my consideration as to whether the direction to attend the IME was fair and reasonable. I note the Respondent's submissions that they have requested further particulars of the alleged bullying however they have not been supplied by the Appellant.
  1. [39]
    I note that the Respondent's submissions that the purpose of the decision was to gain further information in determining how best to support the Appellant and does not represent a pre-determined outcome. In circumstances where attempts were made to obtain further medical information directly from the Appellant's treating practitioner, which were denied, it was not unfair or unreasonable for the decision maker to determine that an IME was required.
  1. [40]
    The Appellant submits that the requirements of the Act have not been met in that the Appellant had been cleared to return to work. The meeting of 18 November 2021 occurred after the Appellant had been cleared to return to work by Dr Maher on 15 November 2021. Despite this clearance, the Appellant did not to her duties in the workplace. The meeting of 18 November 2021 was scheduled to occur prior to the Appellant’s return to the workplace, however following this meeting the Appellant did not in fact return to the workplace. In these circumstances it was reasonable for the decision maker to determine that the Appellant was absent from duty.
  1. [41]
    The Respondent submits that the purpose of the meeting of 18 November 2021 was to discuss the Appellant's return to work and put in place reasonable adjustments so she would not report to the staff members she alleged had bullied her and the most recent medical advice provided by Dr Maher. The Appellant submits that the aim of the meeting was to distress the Appellant and that the file note documenting the meeting was falsified. I note that a copy of the file note was provided to the Appellant on 22 November 2021.
  1. [42]
    I accept the Respondent's submission that it is standard practice for MNHHS to meet with employees who have been absent from work for a significant period to discuss their return to work in order to support them in the workplace. I acknowledge that the Appellant has a different view of the meeting than that outlined in the file note. The Appellant submits that her absence from work after 18 November was not due to the original medical condition, but management's unreasonable behaviour at this meeting. Even if it was accepted that statements were made by 'management' that were not recorded in the file note, this does not alter the fact that the Appellant was absent from the workplace for reasons of mental or physical illness. This is evidenced by the Appellant's provision of a medical certificate covering the period 18 November 2021 to 18 February 2022.
  1. [43]
    The Appellant submits that the requirements of the PS Act are not met as the Appellant's continued absence is due to several instances of unreasonable and unconscionable management behaviour. The PS Act does not require consideration of the reasons for the absence beyond a reasonable suspicion that it is because of mental or physical illness or disability. The reasons for the mental or physical illness or disability are not a relevant consideration. 
  1. [44]
    The Appellant provided a medical certificate with her submissions dated 6 January 2023 stating that the Appellant has been cleared to return to work on 23 January 2023. This certificate was provided following the decision and was therefore not considered by the decision maker.
  1. [45]
    The Appellant contends that the decision is prejudicial on the basis that there is an appeal before the Commission. As I understand it, a separate matter is ongoing relating to an appeal filed by the Appellant pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). There is no evidence before me indicating how the decision directing the Appellant to attend an IME would impact upon unrelated proceedings conducted under different legislation. 
  1. [46]
    The Appellant makes submissions regarding 'lies, omissions and evasions' regarding allegations made against the Appellant. These allegations form part of a raft of submissions regarding the workplace that are not relevant to this decision. The objective facts at the time of the decision were that the Appellant had been absent for a consistent period since 18 November 2019 and the cause of the absence was the Appellant's medical condition as demonstrated by the medical certificates provided by the Appellant. It was reasonable for the decision maker to form a reasonable suspicion that the Appellant's absence was because of a mental or physical illness or injury based on these facts.
  1. [47]
    The decision was made in accordance with the provisions of the Directive and PS Act and was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Order

  1. [48]
    I make the following order:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] IR Act s 562B(2).

[2] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261.

[3] Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the PS Act.

[4] IR Act s 562B(3).

[5] [2021] QIRC 209

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Reimers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Reimers v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 242

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Power IC

  • Date:

    25 Aug 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
Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 183 CLR 245
Cite 2 - (1995) 183 CLR 245
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] HCA 10
Cite 2 - [1995] HCA 10
Dean-Braieoux v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 209
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 209
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 209
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 209

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.