King v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2024] QIRC 95
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- King v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2024] QIRC 95
- Add to List
King v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2024] QIRC 95
King v State of Queensland (Department of Education)[2024] QIRC 95
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | King v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2024] QIRC 095 |
PARTIES: | King, Jodi (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Education) (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | PSA/2022/751 |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal against disciplinary decision |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 18 April 2024 |
MEMBER: | O'Connor VP |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDER: | Pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, the Appeal is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – where public service appeal against a disciplinary decision made pursuant to s 194 of the Public Service Act 2008 – where appellant failed to receive prescribed doses of a COVID-19 vaccination – where disciplinary action imposed reduction in remuneration for 18 weeks and a reprimand – where appellant has failed to comply with directions of the Commission – whether appeal should be dismissed |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011, r 45 Public Service Act 2008, s 194 |
CASES: | House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1990) FCR 388 Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115 |
APPEARANCES: | No appearance for the Appellant. Ms N Smith, Crown Law for the Respondent. |
Reasons for Decision
(as edited)
- [1]On 8 September 2022 Ms Jodi King ('the Appellant') filed an appeal in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') against the State of Queensland (Department of Education) ('the Respondent') pursuant to s 194 of the Public Service Act 2008.[1] This appeal has been made in relation to the disciplinary action decision taken by Ms Anne Crowley, Assistant Director-General, Human Resources, Department of Education on 22 August 2022.
- [2]The Appellant is permanently employed as a Teacher Aide, Cairns State High School.
- [3]Mentions of this matter were listed on 4 and 28 October 2022 at which time the Appellant sought adjournments on both occasions.
- [4]On 21 October 2022 the Appellant emailed the Commission seeking particulars of the matter and stated "[y]ou do not have my consent to proceed in any mention or hearing regarding me, Jodi King".
- [5]A further mention was listed at 10 am on Thursday 18 April 2024. The Appellant responded by email of 16 April 2024 at 8.14 pm as follows:
"Registry Officer
In response to your email dated 16 April 2024 being today,
You have NOT provided better and further particulars on the matter as I have requested you to do so on two separate occasions.
You have NOT provided me with any reason as to why you have not been able to supply me those better and further particulars on the matter, which is a "Rule of Law" if I was to defend myself in any sort of hearing.
You are not exempt from the "Rule of Law" and you are obliged to facilitate procedural fairness to me in this matter.
Until you can follow the "Rule of Law" procedure I'm unable and don't consent to appear in any form whether that be in person or by phone.
Anything heard Exparte [sic] will be Null and Void."
- [6]In considering this response received from the Appellant, the Commission refers to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011 ('the Rules') which provides as follows:
45 Failure to attend or to comply with directions order
- (1)This rule applies if-
- (a)a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and
- (b)the party fails to attend the hearing or conference.
- (2)This rule also applies if-
- (a)a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and
- (b)the party fails to comply with the order.
- (3)The court, commission or registrar may-
- (a)dismiss the proceeding; or
- (b)make a further directions order; or
- (c)make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
- (d)make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c).
- [7]In Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd, Wilcox and Gummow JJ of the Federal Court of Australia referred to the status of a discretion for non-compliance with a direction:
… the history of non-compliance by an applicant is such as to indicate an inability or unwillingness to co‑operate with the Court and the other party or parties in having the matter ready for trial within an acceptable period". … whatever the applicant's state of mind or resources - in which the non‑compliance is continuing and occasioning unnecessary delay, expense or other prejudice to the respondent. … Even though the most recent non-compliance may be minor, the cumulative effect of an applicant's defaults may be such as to satisfy the judge that the applicant is either subjectively unwilling to co‑operate, or for some reason, is unable to do so. Such a conclusion would not readily be reached; but where it was, fairness to the respondent would normally require the summary dismissal of the proceeding.[2]
- [8]The discretion conferred under r 45 must be exercised judicially.[3]
- [9]This is a matter where it is obvious from the Appellant's state of mind expressed in the correspondence received on 21 October 2022 and 16 April 2024 which is referred to above that she has no intention of appearing to proceed with her appeal. In the circumstances and in particular the Appellant's inability and unwillingness to comply with a Directions Order leaves the Commission with no option other than to exercise its discretion to dismiss the proceeding.
Order
- [10]For the above reasons, pursuant to r 45(3)(a) of the Rules, I dismiss the Appeal PSA/2022/751.
Footnotes
[1] The Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) was replaced by the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) which was enacted as from 1 March 2023 where Chapter 9 (Repeal, savings and transitional provisions), Division 7 (Reviews and appeals) at s 324 apply in relation to existing appeals.
[2] Lenijamar Pty Ltd and Ors v AGC (Advances) Ltd, (1990) FCR 388, [36].
[3] Paul Scott v State of Queensland & Ors [2019] QIRC 115, [13] citing House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, 504-505 (Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ).