Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2023
  4. Vinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) - [2023] QIRC 269

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

Vinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2023] QIRC 269

Vinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2023] QIRC 269

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Vinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 269

PARTIES:

Vinson, Anna Kate

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Education)

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

PSA/2022/949

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a transfer decision

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2023

MEMBER:

Power IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

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

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTION OR TRANSFER – Public Service Appeal – appeal against a transfer decision, where appellant required to transfer to another school – where internal review of the required transfer requested – where the appellant appealed the review decision – where transfer confirmed – whether decision to transfer the appellant fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

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

Public Sector Appeal 2022 (Qld), ss 131, 161, 162,  289, and 324

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), s 194

CASES:

Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245

Gilmour v Waddell & Ors [2019] QSC 170

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

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Anna Kate Vinson ('the Appellant') is currently employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) ('the Respondent') as a Teacher at Beaudesert State School ('BSS').
  1. [2]
    On 8 September 2022, the Appellant was notified by Ms Kirsty Payne, Director, Human Resources Business Partnering, South East Region, that she was to be transferred from BSS to Flagstone State School ('FSS').
  1. [3]
    On 15 September 2022, the Appellant applied for an internal review of the decision to transfer her from BSS to FSS, requesting that the transfer be set aside.
  1. [4]
    On 6 October 2022, Mr John Norfolk, Regional Director, South East Region, advised the Appellant that her internal review request had been dismissed, confirming the decision that she be transferred from BSS to FSS ('the transfer decision').
  1. [5]
    On 24 October 2022, the Appellant filed an appeal notice, appealing the transfer decision, pursuant to s 194(1)(d) of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld).[1]
  1. [6]
    On 25 November 2022, the Appellant was informed that the transfer from BSS to FSS has been deferred to 2024 due to a number of factors, including pending student enrolment stabilisation for 2023 at BSS.
  1. [7]
    The Public Sector Act 2022 ('PS Act') commenced operation on 1 March 2023. Pursuant to s 289 of the PS Act, the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) has been repealed. In accordance with section 324 of the PS Act this appeal will be determined in accordance with chapter 3, part 10.
  1. [8]
    The Appellant filed an appeal against the decision in the Industrial Registry prior to the commencement of the PS Act. In accordance with s 324, the appeal must be decided under chp 3, pt 10 of the PS Act.
  1. [9]
    Section 131 of the PS Act outlines the categories of decision against which an appeal may be made. Section 131(1)(g) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against 'a transfer decision'.

Appeal principles

  1. [10]
    The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.[2] As the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[3] An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') is not by way of rehearing,[4] but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision making process associated therewith.
  1. [11]
    The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[5] Accordingly the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the decision of Mr Norfolk dated 6 October 2022 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. [12]
    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.

Relevant legislation and guidelines

  1. [13]
    Section 161 of the PS Act provides for the chief executive of a department the power to transfer or redeploy a public service officer:

161 Chief executive's power to transfer or redeploy

  1. The chief executive of a public service entity (the first entity) may—
  1. transfer or redeploy a public service officer of the first entity within the first entity; or
  1. with the approval of the chief executive of another entity, transfer or redeploy a public service officer of the other entity to the first entity.

…

  1. A transfer or redeployment of a public service officer under this section—
  1. may involve a change in the location where the officer performs duties; and
  1. if the officer is employed on contract—has effect despite anything in the contract.
  1. [14]
    Section 162 of the PS Act provides for the public service officer to refuse the transfer under s 161 if the public service officer establishes reasonable grounds:

162 Consequence if transfer refused

  1. If a public service officer is transferred under section 161, the transfer has effect unless the officer establishes reasonable grounds for refusing the transfer to the satisfaction of the officer's chief executive.
  1. If the public service officer refuses the transfer after failing to establish reasonable grounds for the refusal to the chief executive's satisfaction, the chief executive may terminate the officer's employment by signed notice given to the officer.
  1. If the officer establishes reasonable grounds to the chief executive's satisfaction—
  1. the transfer is cancelled; and
  1. the refusal must not be used to prejudice the officer's prospects for future promotion or advancement.
  1. [15]
    The Teacher Transfer Guidelines ('the Transfer Guidelines') and the Guideline for the Assessment of Compassionate Circumstances ('the ACC Guideline') established a governance framework for, inter alia, required transfers.
  1. [16]
    Clause 4 of the Transfer Guidelines provides for transfer types, including required transfers:

4.  Transfers types that support state-wide mobility and eligibility criteria

…

Required Transfers

…

To meet the workforce planning needs of schools throughout the state or specific operational needs, the department may also require teachers to transfer. Teachers who elect not to pursue suitable teaching opportunities that have been recommended during the performance review process or career discussions with their school leader may be nominated for a required transfer.

…

When identifying teachers for a required transfer, school leaders and HR teams are to take the following factors into consideration:

a) breadth of teaching experience, including prior service in rural and remote locations (i.e. TR4 to 7) or other high priority locations

b)  length of service in current location

c)  professional development activities undertaken in the last 5 years (e.g. further education, additional responsibilities, relieving placements, secondments, special duties, courses, attendance or delivery at conferences or seminars) that either support the teacher in their current position or their longer-term career plans

d)  the need to create vacancies for teachers seeking to transfer following rural and remote service

e)  temporary organisational circumstances that preclude the teacher from moving from their current location

f)  personal circumstances that preclude a teacher from moving either from their current location or residence.

…

Teachers are expected to comply with a departmentally required transfer unless they can establish that reasonable grounds exist for the transfer not to occur.

…

  1. [17]
    Clause 3 of the ACC Guideline outlines when an application for consideration of compassionate circumstances can be made:

3.  Eligibility for the assessment of compassionate circumstances

An application for consideration of compassionate circumstances can be made to the principal/ manager where the permanent staff member:

•  has exceptional and compelling circumstances, beyond their or their manager’s control

•  has a situation that cannot be suitably managed locally by alternative means

•  provides supporting documentation from an independent third party substantiating their compassionate circumstances

•  the supporting documentation justifies why the staff member should be working in a particular location

•  is not subject to a formal Managing Unsatisfactory Performance (MUP)

•  is not subject to formal conduct investigation or outstanding disciplinary action.

  1. [18]
    The ACC Guideline outlines circumstances which are regarded as compassionate where the proposed location causes unjustifiable hardship to include medical circumstances, environmental circumstances and personal circumstances. The ACC Guideline outlines the following circumstances that are generally not considered to be exceptional or compelling:

•  medical applications that are not supported with documentation or evidence that substantiate compassionate circumstances in relation to work location

•  issues associated with commercial or business interests

•  separation from spouse, partner or family without additional hardship grounds

•  voluntary or self-initiated residential relocation

•  distance of travel to and from current school/ location (with the exception of travel times for teachers that exceed reasonable travel time stipulated in Teacher Transfer Guidelines)

•  financial difficulties due to travel from place of residence and associated issues

•  comparison to outcomes from previous compassionate review cases.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [19]
    The Appellant appeals the transfer decision on the basis of cultural reasons and financial hardship, outlining the following:

…

My husband and three children identify as Aboriginal and belong to the Mununjali tribe, the Traditional Custodians of the Beaudesert area. Due to this, myself and my children have strong cultural links to both the school and wider community. These links have enabled my children to develop and grow with a strong connection to Country and their Mununjali mob, which has been further strengthened by their attendance at Beaudesert State School, through strong family ties and the assistance of the school CEC, who is also a Mununjali woman.

Removing my children from this school setting will adversely affect their cultural identity, therefore my husband and I have made a family decision for our children to remain on Mununjali Country and continue their schooling at Beaudesert State School.

…

Due to my decision regarding my children remaining at Beaudesert State School, a transfer and change to my school location will greatly impact my financial situation. My husband works rotating shift hours, alternating between morning, afternoon and night shift, therefore I am the primary caregiver for my children.

If I am transferred to another school location, my children will need to access before and after school care (at a cost of $520 per week). This added cost, along with the other financial pressures that we are currently facing, such as inflation, mortgage rate rises and petrol increases, will place significant financial hardship on my family.

Over the past two years, COVID-19 has impacted my husband’s working situation and reduced his usual earnings. This, plus the rising cost of living during this period, has already negatively impacted our financial situation and I am currently struggling to pay our living costs each week. The added expenses caused by the transfer will only further escalate the situation and cause more financial pressure. This is affecting my wellbeing as well as putting pressure on my marriage.

Submissions

  1. [20]
    The Commission issued a Directions Order calling for submissions from both parties following receipt of the appeal notice. The submissions are summarised below.

Appellant's submissions

  1. [21]
    The Appellant outlined a number of grounds which the Appellant submits are reasonable grounds for refusing the transfer from BSS to FSS.
  1. [22]
    Firstly, the Appellant submits that the transfer decision is inconsistent with the Transfer Guidelines, submitting that:
  1. the process has not been transparent and clear;
  1. many of the Appellant's questions as to why she was chosen for the required transfer have been unanswered;
  1. the Appellant has extensively participated in professional development in the past five years to upskill in response to changing programming requirements at BSS, as well as worked with the increasing complexity of the school population. The transfer has resulted in difficulties with workforce planning within the team;
  1. no teacher being transferred into BSS are from rural or remote areas;
  1. the Appellant's personal circumstances, namely, family, cultural and financial circumstances have not been considered;
  1. the Appellant has never been provided with an adequate response about the reasons for why she was chosen and never had the chance to discuss her grounds with the Respondent; and
  1. the Appellant did not get the opportunity to discuss her reasons with the human resources officer and the decision was already made before meeting with the Appellant, which is not an appropriate way to conduct a transfer review/appeal process.
  1. [23]
    The Appellant submits that the transfer will affect her family's Indigenous connection with the Beaudesert area, outlining the following:

•  My husband and children are Mununjali, traditional custodians of the Beaudesert area, therefore we have strong links to Country.

•  Forcibly moving my children to another school and Indigenous place brings about strong feelings for my husband, which is causing stress upon our family unit.

•  My children also have strong family ties within the school and community. They have a strong connection to Country and their Mununjali mob, with the assistance of the school CEC, Ms Stacie Fogarty, and their identity will be adversely affected by a change of school.

•  I have worked hard to raise my children to be proud Mununjali jarjums who contribute strongly to their culture. They have excellent attendance, academic success and have been acknowledged repeatedly for their positive contributions to the school community. This is of great significance to us.

  1. [24]
    The Appellant submits that the transfer will affect her family's financial situation, outlining that:
  1. the Appellant is the primary caregiver and her children will need to access care before and after school. Such costs, along with the other financial pressures such as inflation, mortgage rises and petrol increases will cause significant financial hardship; and
  1. the Appellant's husband's employment has been affected by COVID-19, resulting in being in arrears on bills and mortgage repayments. The transfer will place further stress and cause further delays in mortgage repayments, which could cause the Appellant to lose her house due to the additional expenses associated with childcare and travel.
  1. [25]
    The Appellant submits that her children will be unable to continue with their involvement in after school activities in the Beaudesert community should the Appellant be required to be transferred due to travel time. The Appellant outlines the after school activities in which her children currently participate.
  1. [26]
    The Appellant submits that the proposed transfer has caused the Appellant undue stress and has discussed this with the school guidance officer and the local doctor. The Appellant submits that, prior to the transfer decision, she has had no history of stress and anxiety related illnesses.
  1. [27]
    The Appellant further provided an outline of her history of employment as a Teacher with BSS.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [28]
    The Respondent outlines that it has a scheme to manage the fair and equitable transfer of Queensland State School Teachers within Queensland ('the Transfer Scheme'), including required transfers. The Respondent further outlines that the governance framework established through the Transfer Guidelines and the ACC Guideline provides for the fair and equitable disbursement of required transfers. The Respondent submits that required transfers are an important part of the Transfer Scheme as it allows the Respondent to accommodate fluctuations in student enrolments, return Teachers who have completed rural service, and support Teachers who present with acute medical and domestic circumstances.
  1. [29]
    The Respondent submits that it is usually the case that compassionate circumstances, within the meaning of the ACC Guideline, will form reasonable grounds for a transfer not to occur.
  1. [30]
    The Respondent highlights that the Transfer Guidelines provides that a reasonable travel time 'of up to 50 minutes driving time from a teacher's place of residence is considered reasonable'. The Respondent submits that the driving time between FSS and the Appellant's place of residence is between 30 and 40 minutes.
  1. [31]
    The Respondent acknowledges that the Appellant provided an explanation in support of her request for a review of her required transfer and that the transfer will affect the Appellant's present domestic arrangements. However, the Respondent contends that the material provided by the Appellant did not establish to the satisfaction of Mr Norfolk that a personal circumstance would cause her to suffer an unjustifiable hardship from the decision to transfer her from BSS to FSS.
  1. [32]
    The Respondent submits that there is no evidence before the Respondent that the Appellant's required transfer from BSS to FSS is likely to cause the Appellant an unjustifiable hardship within the meaning of the Transfer Scheme. The Respondent further submits that it is confident that it can provide a safe workplace environment for the Appellant at FSS.

Appellant's submissions in reply

  1. [33]
    In reply, the Appellant disagrees that the Transfer Guidelines and the ACC Guideline establishes a governance framework for the fair and equitable disbursement of required transfers and submits the following:

… the Teacher Transfer Guidelines provides an adequate policy framework for required transfers and the review/appeal process but note that this document does not set out any specific explicit policy guidance about the grounds that might be considered for a required transfer to be considered unreasonable. I have referenced some of my review to the required transfer section of the Guidelines as I believe the South East Region has not complied with certain aspects of the process outlined. I note this document has a section titled Compassionate Circumstances but in it there is no reference to any link between the grounds for a compassionate transfer and the grounds for appealing a required transfer.

  1. [34]
    The Appellant further disagrees with the Respondent's position that it is usual to conclude that a compassionate circumstance, within the meaning of the ACC Guideline, will form reasonable grounds for a transfer not to occur. The Appellant submits that both the Transfer Guidelines and the ACC Guideline does not include any reference to such a conclusion and further, that the reasonable grounds that can be used to support an appeal against a transfer are not governed by any of the Respondent's material.

Consideration

  1. [35]
    Consideration of an appeal of this kind requires a review of the decision by Mr Norfolk to confirm the transfer of the Appellant from BSS to FSS to determine if the decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  1. [36]
    The decision by Mr Norfolk confirmed that the Appellant's request for a review of the decision to transfer her to FSS was considered by the Teacher Transfer Review panel. The decision continues:

I have accepted the panel's recommendation and wish to advise that your review has been dismissed. After considering all information provided by you to the panel, and their subsequent recommendation, I believe that the proposed transfer is consistent with the provisions of section 133 of the Public Service Act 2008 and the Teacher Transfer Guidelines. A summary of the factors that the panel considered when making its determination is attached.

  1. [37]
    In reaching the decision, the panel considered the following documents:
  • Teacher Transfer Guidelines
  • Compassionate statement
  • Teacher Transfer Request for Review – Required Transfer
  • Supporting Financial Documentation
  • 2022 Teacher Transfer Application
  • Letters of Support
  1. [38]
    The decision confirmed by Mr Norfolk outlines the following:

[the Appellant's] transfer is a required transfer and required transfers were enacted to create vacancies in schools across the region to enable placements of teachers returning from rural and remote service, accommodate those returning from leave and/or to enhance existing skills by providing a new teaching experience.

The Teacher Transfer Guidelines state teachers permanently employed by the department may be required to teach at any location in the state. The department may require a teacher to transfer to meet the workforce planning needs of schools throughout the state or specific operational needs including to support school renewal, continuous improvement and innovation and generate vacancies for teachers seeking to transfer following rural and remote service.

The transfer guidelines also state teachers are expected to comply with a departmentally required transfer unless they can establish that reasonable grounds exist for the transfer not to occur. Reasonable grounds are established through the same criteria as compassionate transfer requests.

  1. [39]
    The Appellant disputes the Respondent's submission that the Teacher Transfer Guideline and the Assessment of Compassionate Circumstances Guideline (ACC Guideline) establish a governance framework for the fair and equitable disbursement of required transfers. The Appellant submits that the Teacher Transfer Guidelines do not set out any specific policy guidance about the grounds that might be considered for a required transfer to be considered unreasonable. The Appellant submits that there is no reference to any link between the grounds for a compassionate transfer and the grounds for appealing a required transfer.
  1. [40]
    Section 161 of the PS Act provides the chief executive of the Respondent with the power to transfer the Appellant. The Appellant is only able to refuse the transfer in circumstances where reasonable grounds for refusing the transfer are established pursuant to s 162 of the PS Act. Accordingly, the criteria for refusing the transfer is the establishment of ‘reasonable grounds’.
  1. [41]
    The Respondent relies upon the Assessment of Compassionate Circumstances Guideline (ACC Guideline) to consider whether the Appellant has established reasonable grounds. The ACC Guideline establishes a criteria to consider requests for compassionate transfers, outlining factors that may be considered and other factors that are not generally considered in assessing such transfers. I note that the ACC Guideline provides that a compassionate circumstance is one in which ''the current or proposed location causes unjustifiable hardship to an applicant'' because of medical, environmental or personal circumstances. It is clear that the ACC Guideline contemplates consideration of proposed transfers. In circumstances where the Teacher Transfer Guidelines do not specify the criteria used to establish 'reasonable grounds' it is fair and reasonable to use the same criteria as that used for other transfers to ensure fairness and consistency across the transfer process.
  1. [42]
    The Appellant submits that financial hardship resulting from the proposed transfer is relevant to her contention that the transfer is not reasonable and refers to other potential circumstances in which financial hardship could arise for a teacher subject to a transfer. The Respondent's reliance on the ACC Guideline does not prevent consideration of these circumstances if they were exceptional or compelling. The ACC Guideline simply provides that 'financial difficulties due to travel from place of residence and associated issues' are circumstances that are generally not considered as exceptional or compelling. One would expect that the vast majority of required transfers will have a financial impact on the employee if the proposed location is further away from their home than their current school or that of their children. It is reasonable to determine that this is not generally a ground to refuse a transfer decision in the absence of evidence of more compelling circumstances.
  1. [43]
    The ACC Guideline provides that circumstances are regarded as compassionate where the proposed location causes unjustifiable hardship to an employee because of medical circumstances, environmental circumstances or personal circumstances. The circumstances submitted by the Appellant do not meet the criteria outlined under medical, environmental or personal circumstances.
  1. [44]
    The ACC Guideline provides that the compassionate assessment review panel has discretion to consider whether extraordinary personal circumstances are sufficient to warrant granting consideration of compassionate grounds on a case by case basis. It was open to the panel to determine that the Appellant had not demonstrated such extraordinary personal circumstances. 
  1. [45]
    Attached to the decision was a list of factors that were considered by the department in identifying the Appellant for the required transfer and consideration of the Appellant's information.
  1. [46]
    The factors outlined by the Appellant in objecting to the transfer were addressed in the attachment to the decision.
  1. [47]
    The panel considered the Appellant's submissions relating to her family's ties to the Munumjali community, however noted that transfers are undertaken in accordance with Departmental policy, procedures and guidelines. The Appellant submits that 'forcibly' moving her children to another school will impact on their cultural identity. It appears in other submissions that the Appellant has determined that her children will not transfer to FSS, giving rise to other submissions relating to the costs of outside school hours care.
  1. [48]
    The Appellant's submission relating to hardship based on the additional travel time to FSS was considered by the panel. The panel referred to the Teacher Transfer Guidelines outlining the following:

A transfer placement of a designated base location of up to 50 minutes driving time from a teacher’s place of residence is considered reasonable. Time is calculated according to the nearest trafficable route, but should consider factors such as road and traffic conditions. Electronic trip planners such as www.googlemaps.com.au or www. mydrive. Tomtom.com may be used as a guide to determine approximate driving time.

  1. [49]
    The panel decision states ''the change of travel time as indicated by recommended electronic trip planners is between 32 and 40 minutes from [the Appellant's] place of residence to the required transfer location of Flagstone State School.''
  1. [50]
    On this basis of the Teacher Transfer Guidelines, it was open to the panel to determine that the travel time to FSS was reasonable.
  1. [51]
    The panel considered the Appellant's current financial circumstances and whilst sympathetic to her situation, stated that this information was outside the scope of consideration by an employer with regards to the Transfer Review Request. It is noted that the ACC Guideline states that circumstances that are generally not considered as exceptional or compelling include distance of travel to and from the school (subject to Teacher Transfer Guidelines) and financial difficulties due to travel from place of residence and associated issues.
  1. [52]
    The Appellant submits that the Respondent has not answered her questions as to why she was chosen for the required transfer, and that there is no teacher being transferred into BSS from rural or remote areas. There is no requirement under the Act or Directive that the Respondent provide a comparative assessment of the proposed transferee and teacher colleagues. As noted in the decision, there are multiple workplace management issues which are taken into consideration as contemplated by the Teacher Transfer Guidelines.
  1. [53]
    The Appellant refers to the Respondent's submission that this appeal is not a hearing de novo but rather a review of the decision. The Appellant's submits that if the Respondent believes that evidence provided in the Appellant's submission may have led Mr Norfolk to a different decision the process should be suspended to allow Mr Norfolk to consider any evidence the Respondent believes was not available to the decision maker. No assertion was made by the Respondent that relevant evidence was not put before the decision maker at the time of the decision. The Respondent's submission that this appeal is a review of Mr Norfolk's decision simply affirms the nature of the appeal process.
  1. [54]
    I am satisfied that the decision considered the Appellant's objections to the transfer decision and provided adequate reasons as to why the Respondent did not accept that reasonable grounds had been demonstrated. It is entirely reasonable to rely upon a consistent criteria to consider both compassionate transfers and whether there are reasonable grounds to refuse a required transfer. Following this assessment, it was open to Mr Norfolk to then determine that the proposed transfer is consistent with the provisions of the Teacher Transfer Guidelines and that reasonable grounds had not been established to allow the Appellant to refuse the required transfer.
  1. [55]
    The Respondent is empowered to transfer employees to anywhere in the State pursuant to s 161 of the PS Act. I particularly note the panel's comments:

As outlined in the Conditions of Employment, permanent teachers may be required to teach anywhere in the state and should also expect, as part of their teaching career, that they may be required to teach in locations not necessarily of their choice as all teachers are likely to be required to transfer at some stage.

  1. [56]
    The determination that the Appellant's personal circumstances did not meet the criteria for compassionate transfer and consequently did not establish reasonable grounds to refuse the required transfer was open to the decision maker and should not be disturbed on appeal.
  1. [57]
    The relevant principles in considering whether a decision is 'unreasonable' were outlined by Ryan J in Gilmour v Waddell & Ors:[6] 

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

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

A court considering an argument that a decision is unreasonable is not undertaking a merits review. If a decision may be reasonably justified, then it is not an unreasonable decision, even if a reviewing court might disagree with it.[7]

  1. [58]
    Applying the principles outlined above, I do not consider that the transfer decision lacks justification in the circumstances. Based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the transfer decision was fair and reasonable.

Order

  1. [59]
    I make the following order:

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

Footnotes

[1] PS Act s 131, (repealed).

[2] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2) ('IR Act').

[3] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261.

[4] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld).

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

[6] [2019] QSC 170.

[7] Ibid [207]-[209].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Vinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Vinson v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

  • MNC:

    [2023] QIRC 269

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Power IC

  • Date:

    19 Sep 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
Gilmour v Waddell [2019] QSC 170
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 170
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 170

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.