Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2024
  4. Ogbonna v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2024] QIRC 1

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

Ogbonna v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2024] QIRC 1

Ogbonna v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2024] QIRC 1

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Ogbonna v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 001

PARTIES:

Ogbonna, Pamela

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

PSA/2023/86

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Disciplinary Decision

DELIVERED ON:

5 January 2024

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 SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – appeal against a disciplinary finding decision – where respondent alleges that appellant did not comply with Health Employment Directive No 12/21  Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements – where allegation substantiated – where appellant submits that decision is unfair and unreasonable on the basis she holds a genuinely held religious belief – where decision is fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (Qld), s 51A

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

Public Service Act 2008 (Qld), ss 187, 188 and 194

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)

CASES:

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

Huntington v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 290

Mocnik & Others v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 058

Ms Anna Gikas v The Commissioner For Public Employment [2022] FWC 1133

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

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Pamela Ogbonna ('the Appellant') is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') at the Princess Alexandra Hospital ('PAH').
  1. [2]
    By correspondence dated 13 April 2023[1], Mr Nick Steele, General Manager, Queensland Public Health and Scientific Services, informed the Appellant of a disciplinary finding made against her and the proposed disciplinary action of termination of employment, pursuant to s 91(1)(d) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act').
  1. [3]
    The Appellant has appealed against the disciplinary finding, pursuant to s 91(1)(d) of the PS Act.

Background

  1. [4]
    On 11 September 2021, pursuant to s 51A of the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (Qld) ('HHB Act'), the Chief Executive of the Respondent issued the Health Employment Directive 12/21 regarding employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements ('the Directive').
  1. [5]
    Clause 1 of the Directive provided that compliance with the Directive is mandatory. Clause 4 of the Directive provided that the Directive applied to all health service employees and prospective employees employed under the HHB Act.
  1. [6]
    Clause 8.1 of the Directive provided:

8.1  Existing employees currently undertaking work or moving into a role undertaking work listed in a cohort of Table 1, must:

a.  have received at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 30 September 2021; and

b.  have received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 31 October 2021.

•  An existing employee must provide to their line manager or upload into the designated system:

a.  evidence of vaccination confirming that the employee has received at least the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by no later than 7 days after receiving the vaccine.

b.  evidence of vaccination confirming that the employee has received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by no later than 7 days after receiving the vaccine.

•  An existing employee must maintain vaccine protection. Therefore, an existing employee is required to receive the prescribed subsequent dose/s of a COVID-19 vaccination (i.e. booster), as may be approved by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), within any recommended timeframe following the second dose. Evidence of vaccination, confirming the employee has received prescribed subsequent dose/s of the vaccine, is to be provided to their line manager or other designated person within 7 days of receiving the vaccine.

•  An existing employee who is required to have received a first or second dose of a COVID-19 dose at an earlier date under a Chief Health Officer public health direction must be vaccinated by the dates specified in the public health direction.

•  The requirements of this clause 8 do not apply to existing employees who have been granted an exemption under clause 10 of this HED.

  1. [7]
    Clause 10.2 of the Directive provided that an exemption application would be considered where the employee had a recognised medical contraindication, the employee had a genuinely held religious belief, or where another exceptional circumstance existed. It is not in dispute that the Directive applied to the Appellant.
  1. [8]
    On 28 September 2021, the Appellant submitted an exemption application to the mandatory vaccination requirements of the Directive. The Appellant identified 'genuinely held religious beliefs' as the basis for the exemption and submitted that she was unable to become vaccinated as the COVID-19 vaccines did not align with the Appellant's religious beliefs.
  1. [9]
    By correspondence dated 20 December 2021, Professor Keith McNeil, Acting Deputy Director-General and Chief Medical Officer, Prevention Division and Chief Clinical Information Officer, informed the Appellant that her application for an exemption was denied.
  1. [10]
    On 1 January 2022, the Appellant sought an internal review of the decision to refuse her exemption application. By  correspondence dated 17 October 2022, Dr David Rosengren, Chief Operating Officer, confirmed on internal review the decision to not approve the Appellant’s exemption from the requirements of the Directive.
  1. [11]
    On 24 November 2022, the Appellant filed a public service appeal against the internal review decision. On 10 February 2023, Deputy President Merrell determined the appeal would not be heard on the basis that it was filed outside of the statutory timeframe.
  1. [12]
    Mr Steele provided the Appellant with correspondence dated 8 December 2022, inviting her to respond to an allegation regarding her failure to comply with the requirements of the Directive (the show cause notice).
  1. [13]
    The Appellant advised her direct line manager, Ms Anita Breed, on 27 January 2023 that she did not intend to add anything additional to her case or provide a further response to the show cause notice.
  1. [14]
    Mr Steele advised the Appellant via correspondence on 13 April 2023 that the allegation had been substantiated and the Appellant had been found to have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a direction given to a public service employee by a responsible person under s 91(1)(d) of the Public Sector Act 2022. Mr Steele invited the Appellant to respond to the proposed disciplinary action of termination of her employment.
  1. [15]
    The Appellant filed a notice of appeal against Mr Steele’s disciplinary finding.

Appeal principles

  1. [16]
    The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.[2] Because 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. [17]
    The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[5] The issue for determination is whether the decision to make a disciplinary finding against the Appellant 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. [18]
    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.

The appeal notice

  1. [19]
    In the appeal notice the Appellant outlined that the appeal had been brought on the grounds that her genuinely held religious beliefs as an active born-again Christian in the Christ Embassy Church prevented her from complying with the Directive and that the Appellant seriously doubted the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing the transmission of COVID-19.

Appellant's submissions

  1. [20]
    The Appellant submits the following, in summary:
  • Each of the manufacturers of the Covid vaccines available have confirmed their vaccines used foetal cell lines, which originated from aborted foetuses years ago, to carry out testings during the research and development of the vaccines. The Covid vaccines available, have confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293.
  • The Bible (the Holy Book of my religious faith) clearly tells us that before God formed us in our mother’s womb, He already knew us and had a plan for us (Jeremiah 1:5). The Bible also states that children are a heritage and gift from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5.) Furthermore, In Proverbs 6:16-19 God tells us that there are six things the Lord hates and seven that are detestable to Him, one of those being the shed of innocent blood. Psalm 139:1316 tells us that God knits us together in our mother’s womb and my religion informs that based on the Bible, abortion is a sin to God. God cherishes all life in His Creation, including the life of the unborn, and as a practicing Christian I have to follow and obey God's Word. Partaking in a vaccine that has utilised aborted fetuses [sic] makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith and belief that all life, including the life of unborn children, is sacred and Holy. It is my sincere belief that forcing anyone to take a vaccine that runs counter to their religious beliefs is unethical, inhumane, and in violation of my Christian faith. When I was a young child, I had no say in the matter as to which vaccines were given to me, but as an adult I have made the moral and conscious decision to not partake in any vaccines going forward that utilize fetal [sic] cell lines at any stage of development or testing.
  • Furthermore, the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines operate differently from other conventional vaccines as they contain genetic coding instructions that aim to instruct the body to produce a spike protein that is not natural to our own human genetic system. The possibility of genetically altering the human body and its natural genetic system is also deemed as wrong in my religion because we firmly believe God created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) and we are not to tamper or defile our sacred bodies in any way or form as our bodies belong to God (1Corinthians 6:19). Therefore, my religion does not consent to this kind of medical treatments.
  • Queensland health (QH) initially offered the option to apply for exemption based on genuinely held religious beliefs. My exemption application met all requirements of a genuinely religious beliefs, why then did QH still proceed to deny it. It seems to me that this exemption option was only stated on paper but QH had predestined to deny the exemption regardless of whether I met all the requirements or not. This seems to be a cases of religion discrimination, it appears that Queensland Health is discriminating me on basis of my religious faith and stance in Jesus Christ. One of the Australian values is Freedom of Religion. This value clearly states that religious intolerance is not accepted in the Australian society and that people in Australia are free to follow any religion they choose and the government treats all citizens equally. It appears that my freedom to follow my religion is prohibited, when QH is proposing to terminate my employment unless I go against my religion. This is not equality as stated in the Australian Values
  • One the 5th of May 2023, the World Health Organisation (WHO) head declared an end to COVID-19 as a global health emergency. Australia is currently no longer in a covid-19 Pandemic, as a healthy individual myself with no underlying health conditions, I am not a covid-19 health threat to QH with a fully vaccinated staff population. My decision to follow my religious beliefs still stands, and I should not be discriminated because of this. I have the right to autonomy just like every other person does.
  • Current research findings has revealed the covid-19 vaccines was not as effective in minimising the spread of the virus as they initially thought it would. Vaccine injuries and severe side effects like myocarditis and even death in some cases have been reported from this covid-vaccine. I personally know of individuals who have suffered injuries from the covid vaccine which has caused negative impact on their lives, families and jobs.
  • While I do not judge, discriminate or condemn anyone that has or will take the vaccine, I personally cannot do so. This is not being anti-vaccine or to rebel against the health employment directive.  My religious faith in Jesus Christ is very dear to me, it has brought me out of some very traumatic and dark situations I’ve personally faced in life. It is the hope I cling to in these perilous times and taking this vaccine will trouble my conscience and force me to carry a heavy sense of guilt for the rest of my life. I truly don’t know how I will be able to live with this burden of guilt.
  • My religious beliefs have also shaped my mindset and personal conducts of love, respect, forgiveness, patience and more as stated in Galatians 5:22-23. Every day I strive to apply these in my life including my workplace. Hence, I appeal against termination of my employment as I continue in my religious faith with a clear conscience.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [21]
    The Respondent submits that the decision to make the disciplinary finding was fair and reasonable. The Respondent submits, in summary, the following:
  • It is not in dispute that she has not received, or provided evidence of receiving, a COVID-19 vaccine. It is therefore not in dispute the Appellant has failed to comply with HED 12/21.
  • It is well established that HED 12/21 and the requirement to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is a lawful and reasonable direction.[6] The Appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the direction in HED 12/21.
  • The Appellant’s reasons for not wishing to become vaccinated against COVID-19 have been repeatedly considered by the Commission in public service appeals, as well as industrial tribunals in other jurisdictions, and have repeatedly been found not to amount to a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a requirement to become vaccinated. In this regard: 
  1. In accordance with HED 12/21, the Appellant had the opportunity to apply for an exemption, and she took advantage of that opportunity. The Appellant’s religious beliefs were acknowledged, however ultimately, the decision maker considered there was no less restrictive means other than vaccination which would sufficiently ensure the safety of The Appellant, other staff members and patients, as well as ensure the ongoing readiness of the health system to respond to the pandemic. On that basis, her exemption application was refused, and confirmed on internal review. 
  1. The Department has not discriminated against the Appellant as she alleges. It is clear the Appellant’s true complaint is that her religious beliefs were not provided the degree of recognition she feels they deserved. It is clear she fails to accept the importance of competing considerations of workplace community safety and how they could take precedence over her own views. Further, this is not the correct jurisdiction for her to pursue a complaint of discrimination. 
  1. On the Appellant’s own submission, she has ‘no underlying health conditions’. She has provided no evidence she had a recognised medical contraindication to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, or any evidence of a medical condition which meant she was unable to be safely administered the current vaccines.[7] 
  1. Although the Appellant expresses concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, including adverse reactions and death, it is not the Department’s responsibility to allay her concerns or anxieties about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine[8], nor was it required to provide her with assurances concerning the safety or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.[9] COVID-19 vaccines have been approved by the TGA and ATAGI. The TGA’s approval of relevant vaccines is a matter of public record and is evidence of their safety and efficacy.[10] Vaccine hesitancy is not a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a direction. 
  • While the Appellant stated she was willing to wear the required PPE and social distance instead of receiving COVID-19 vaccination. The Appellant is not entitled to determine how she will comply with the HED 12/21.
  • Despite the Appellant clearly expressing concerns regarding the Pfizer and mRNA-based vaccines being incompatible with her religious beliefs, there were other non-mRNA-based vaccines available for her to receive. Specifically, the Novavax vaccine has been available to receive in Australia since 14 February 2022, some 14 months before disciplinary findings were made against her. The Appellant has at no time expressed an interest in receiving this vaccine.
  • The decision to find the allegation substantiated was procedurally fair. The Appellant was provided an opportunity to respond to the First Show Cause Notice before any decision on disciplinary findings was made and decided not to do so.
  • The decision maker was satisfied that the Appellant’s reasons for failing to comply with the direction to receive a COVID-19 vaccination did not amount to a reasonable excuse. Such a conclusion was reasonably open to him.
  • For completeness, Mr Steele considered the Appellant’s human rights. Mr Steele determined any impact to her human rights was reasonably justified because it was in the public interest to ensure employees comply with lawful and reasonable directions issued to them, including directions relating to public health and work health safety, and (with respect to the decision to suspend her without pay) the Department's obligations to ensure the efficient and appropriate use of public funds outweighed the limited potential impact on her human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 at that time.
  • In circumstances where it is uncontroversial that the Appellant has failed to follow a lawful and reasonable direction to become vaccinated against COVID-19 and provide evidence of vaccination, without reasonable excuse, it was reasonably open for Mr Steele to substantiate the Allegation and make disciplinary findings against the Appellant.[11]
  • The Department asks the Commission to confirm the decision appealed against on the basis it is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. 

Consideration

  1. [22]
    The matter under appeal is the decision of Mr Steele to substantiate the allegation that the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of the Directive, and to make a disciplinary finding that the Appellant had contravened a direction given to her under s 91(1)(d) of the PS Act.
  1. [23]
    The only decision on appeal in this matter is the disciplinary finding, as the Appellant does not refer to the suspension decision contained in the correspondence of Mr Steele. I note that the Appellant’s submissions refer to the proposed disciplinary action of the termination of employment. A decision on disciplinary action has not been made and as such does not form part of this appeal.
  1. [24]
    In the show cause notice, Mr Steele invited the Appellant to respond to the following allegation –

You have not complied with the requirements of HED 12/21 to receive the prescribed number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and to provide evidence of having received the prescribed number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.  

  1. [25]
    The Appellant did not provide a response to the allegation. Mr Steele wrote to the Appellant advising that he found the allegation to be substantiated and that he found the Appellant had contravened, without reasonable excuse, a direction given to her as a public service employee by a responsible person under section 91(1)(d) of the Public Sector Act 2022. Mr Steele provided the Appellant seven days to show cause why he should not impose the disciplinary action of termination of her employment.
  1. [26]
    It is not in dispute that the Appellant was subject to the Directive and that the Appellant had not received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or provided evidence of having received the prescribed doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. It was therefore open to Mr Steele on the evidence before him to substantiate the allegation.
  1. [27]
    It is clear from the Appellant’s submissions that the Appellant held a view that taking a COVID-19 vaccination was contrary to her religious beliefs. The Appellant’s submissions indicate that her religious beliefs were genuinely held, and the decision maker accepted that as such. A considerable part of the Appellant’s submissions relate to her objection to the use of mRNA vaccines on the basis that they rely on foetal cell lines, however, no reference was made to the reasons as to why the Appellant did not accept non-mRNA vaccines that were also available.
  1. [28]
    The Appellant contends that her application for an exemption on the basis of her religious beliefs should have been granted. The Appellant was given notice of the requirements to comply with the Directive and subsequently made an application for an exemption from the Directive on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief. This application was denied, and the Appellant sought an internal review of the decision. The internal review was conducted by Dr David Resengren, who confirmed the decision to deny the Appellant’s exemption application. The Appellant filed an appeal in this Commission against the internal review decision, however, the appeal was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons.
  1. [29]
    The decision to deny the Appellant’s exemption does not form part of this appeal as that decision has already been subject to a review process. I note that the Respondent’s internal review of the exemption decision determined that consideration of the Appellant’s genuinely held religious beliefs did not outweigh or take precedence over the health and wellbeing of colleagues, patients, and other stakeholders who accessed the Appellant’s workplace.
  1. [30]
    The Appellant contends that the Respondent’s decision to not accept her genuinely held religious beliefs was discriminatory. It was reasonable for the decision maker to determine that there were no less restrictive means other than vaccination that would sufficiently ensure the safety of employees and patients and ensure the readiness of the health system to respond to the pandemic. The decision to substantiate the allegation and make the disciplinary finding in these circumstances was not discriminatory.
  1. [31]
    The Appellant’s submissions also referred to concerns as to the efficacy of the vaccinations in preventing the spread of COVID-19. The decision of Mr Steele considered previous concerns raised by the Appellant relating to the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. As noted in Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[12], the Appellant is entitled to their personal views on the vaccines, however it is not incumbent upon the Respondent to accept these views. As has consistently been determined in matters before this Commission, vaccine hesitancy is not a reasonable excuse for contravening the requirements of the Directive.[13] The Respondent was not required to provide assurances concerning the safety and efficacy of the COVID-9 vaccines on the basis that the vaccines had been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approval process and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). The Directive was lawful and reasonable,[14] and the Appellant’s personal views did not outweigh the requirement to comply with the Directive.
  1. [32]
    I note that Mr Steele considered the Appellant’s human rights as part of his decision. The decision outlined that Mr Steele had determined that any impact to the Appellant’s human rights was reasonably justified because it was in the public interest to ensure employees comply with lawful and reasonable directions issued to them, including directions relating to public health and work health safety. This was a reasonable conclusion to reach in balancing the human rights of the Appellant with the need to ensure the safety of her work colleagues and the general public.
  1. [33]
    Following the rejection of the Appellant’s exemption application and subsequent review and appeal, the Appellant was obligated to comply with the requirements of the Directive. In circumstances where the Appellant did not comply with the Directive’s requirements, it was open to Mr Steele to find that the allegation was substantiated. In all of the circumstances, the disciplinary finding that the Appellant had contravened a direction given to her under s 91(1)(d) of the PS Act was open to the decision maker. 
  1. [34]
    Based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Order

  1. [35]
    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] The Respondent advised the Commission that while Mr Steele's letter was dated 14 April 2023, it was a typographical error. The letter was signed and sent to Ms Ogbonna via email on 13 April 2023.

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

[3] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (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 PS Act.

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

[6] Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 039 at [36], [39] and [41]; Bax v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 304 at [53]; Donnelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 149 at [30]; Mocnik & Ors v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 058.

[7] See Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 414 at [61].

[8] Tribe v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 203 at [52]

[9] Stevens v Epworth Foundation [2022] FWC 593 at [35]; Tribe v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 203 at [52].

[10] Stevens v Epworth Foundation [2022] FWC 593 at [19].

[11] Neville v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 092 at [65].

[12] [2022] QIRC2

[13] McKinney v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 132; Galletly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 040; Sainty v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No 2) [2023] QIRC 078; Borough v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2022] QIRC 357

[14] Brasell-Dellow & Ors v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2021] QIRC 356; Mocnik & Others v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 058

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Ogbonna v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Ogbonna v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2024] QIRC 1

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Power IC

  • Date:

    05 Jan 2024

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
Bax v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 304
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 304
Borough v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2022] QIRC 357
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 357
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
Brasell-Dellow v State of Queensland, (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 356
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 356
Donnelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 149
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 149
Galletly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 40
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 40
Gilmour v Waddell [2019] QSC 170
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 170
Huntington v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 290
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 290
McKinney v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 132
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 132
Mocnik v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 58
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 58
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 58
Cite 3 - [2023] QIRC 58
Ms Anna Gikas v The Commissioner For Public Employment [2022] FWC 1133
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] FWC 1133
Neville v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 92
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 92
Radev v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2021] QIRC 414
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 414
Sainty v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 78
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 78
Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 39
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 39
Stevens v Epworth Foundation [2022] FWC 593
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] FWC 593
Cite 2 - [2022] FWC 593
Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 2
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 2
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 2
Tribe v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 203
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 203
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 203

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.