Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors - [2025] QIRC 165

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

Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors[2025] QIRC 165

Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors[2025] QIRC 165

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors [2025] QIRC 165

PARTIES:

Fraser, Eddie James

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)

(First Respondent)

AND

Harrison, Carolyn

(Second Respondent)

CASE NO:

GP/2024/22

PROCEEDING:

General Protections – Application for Amendment Application

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2025

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDERS:

  1. The Amended Application is disallowed.
  2. Pursuant to s 539(b)(iv) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), Mr Ian Park is joined to these proceedings. Mr Ian Park will become the Third Respondent.
  3. Pursuant to s 539(b)(iv) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), Ms Carrie Davidson is joined to these proceedings. Ms Carrie Davidson will become the Fourth Respondent.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – GENERAL PROTECTIONS APPLICATION RELATING TO DISMISSAL –  application for amended application – proposed amendments not allowed

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 7, s 8, s 166, s 174B

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 18, s 19, r 22, r 23

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 278, s 282, s 285, s 447

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19, s 28, s 31, s 32, s 33, s 230

CASES:

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27

Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation Queensland, Industrial Organisation of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 278

Byrne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 013

Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service [2021] QIRC 255

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    On 28 May 2024, Mr Eddie James Fraser (the Applicant) filed a General Protections Application (the Initial Application) against his employer, the Queensland Police Service (QPS; the First Respondent) and Ms Carolyn Harrison (the Second Respondent).
  2. [2]
    On 4 November 2024, the Applicant filed an Amended General Protections Application (the Amended Application), containing changes to the orders sought and grounds of the Application.
  3. [3]
    With his Amended Application, the Applicant filed seven Form 1 – Parties Lists, seeking to add an additional seven Respondents to the proceeding:
  1. Amanda Jane Brownhill (the proposed Third Respondent);
  2. Ian Park (the proposed Fourth Respondent);
  3. Steve Gollschewski (the proposed Fifth Respondent);
  4. William Heasly (the proposed Sixth Respondent);
  5. Marshall Brendan Bostock (the proposed Seventh Respondent);
  6. Carrie Davidson (the proposed Eighth Respondent); and
  7. Mark Ryan (the proposed Ninth Respondent).
  1. [4]
    The Amended Application contains a "Table of losses from 18.12.23 – 01.07.24 (14 fortnights or 28 weeks)" comprising of calculations of financial damages sought in the amount of $1,099,539.60, marked "EJF1".[1] The Applicant outlines other non-financial compensation he is seeking, such as policy changes within the QPS, training on anti-discrimination and mental health awareness, a prohibition order, an unreserved apology, cessation of harassment and bullying, training on respectable workplace behaviour for all QPS personnel, release of all material sought under RTI applications and action being taken against the proposed Seventh Respondent.[2]
  2. [5]
    The Applicant has also attached a Schedule to the Amended Application which outlines examples of conduct the Applicant alleges to have breached various legislation, marked "EJF2".[3]   
  3. [6]
    On 11 November 2024, Crown Law on behalf of the First and Second Respondents, filed a Response to the Amended Application, objecting to all proposed amendments pursuant to r 22 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) (the Tribunals Rules).
  4. [7]
    On 19 November 2024, Crown Law on behalf of the Third to Ninth Respondents, filed a Response to the Amended Application, objecting to all proposed amendments.
  5. [8]
    This Decision determines whether the Amended Application will be allowed.

Background

  1. [9]
    In the Applicant's Initial Application filed on 28 May 2024, the Applicant set out his grounds as follows:
  1. 1.
    the QPS have been in possession and control of a plethora of medical material since 2020 and to date have not assisted or complied with working together, communicating with treating practitioners or assisting in ensuring compliance of treating recomendations (sic).
  1. 2.
    Various material is before the QIRC with respect to my application 24 October 2024 with respect to a fair treatment appeal psa/2023/206).
  1. 3.
    on 21 December 2023 there was to be a mention of the matter and that was defered (sic) as a result of reporting of negative workplace conduct and unfounded allegations of sexual harrasment (sic) that were leveled (sic) against me.
  1. 4.
    A psychological injury occured (sic) and is currently before the WC regulator for a review on the denial of the claim as a result purported to be "reasonable management action"
  1. 5.
    on 29 April Ian PARK and Carrie DAVISON presented themseves (sic) to my principle (sic) place of residence in a personal vehicle and without accuturments (sic) in non complaince (sic) with OPMS to deliver and (sic) IME and caused fear, intimidation and harrasment (sic) to my wife and I who were home at the time.
  1. 6.
    An internal review was sought in relation to the direction for an IME and a response was provided by ADC CONNOR indicating and not articulating the response with respect to reprisal and adverse action.
  1. my correspondence indicated in an email sent to Ms HOWELL on 11 May 2024:
  1. It is noted the material provided is sections of reports and do not contain full reports and address why the IME has been provided only selected excerpts of medical reports.
  1. That Executive director HARRISON has been aware of issues that I have raised since at least 8 August of 2023 with respect to a formal (and currently before the QIRC ) grievance with respect to failure of Injury management and health, safety and wellbeing to engage, respond and communicate with myself and treating practitioners to establish a reasonable adjustment plan in considering my health, safety and medical conditions that have at all times been provided to the QPS. With this current matter issued the IME direction which is submitted is inconsistent with the conditions of the PS Act. With that regard there is a clear difference in the Reasonable suspicion and actual knowledge in relation to my Mental health condition that ED HARRISON is acutely aware of the conditions and this is supported by the strategically extracted paragraphs that are extracted from the medical reports.
  1. That Executive Director HARRISON has knowingly engaged in reprisal conduct via instigation of the IME Direction as a result of my reporting of negative workplace behaviour, management inaction and discrimination, intimidation ( by having Ian Park and Carrie Davidson whom are non operational dressed in uniform devoid of acuterments (sic) in contravention of OPMS and based in Brisbane Prosecution Corp attend my principal place of residence some 2 hour return trip to deliver this reprisal action IME Direction with the intention to cause fear, intimidation and harassment) and did so to myself and family as a deliberate and calculated with knowledge attempt.
  1. That ED HARRISON is using a process intended to assist employers to understand health related issues to long term absence having knowledge and medical reports providing regular updates, treatment recommendations (ignored by the QPS) causing exacerbation of injury as well as fear, intimidation and harassment to a staff member.
  1. That my reporting of significant issues that could amount to police misconduct and corrupt conduct and has through this action participated in behaviour that if proved meet the definition of corrupt conduct and police misconduct.
  1. that the aggregated and continuing matters of concerning conduct continue to date
  1. 7.
    that these matters be joined to the current psa/2023/206 appeal and considered holisticly (sic) as a continued course of conduct.
  1. 8.
    the QPS is also acutely aware of reported issues to the CCC and the QLD OMBUDSMAN in relation to these issues.
  1. It is known that and subsiquently (sic) an IME direction and the unfolded events of 29 April 2024 are adverse conduct and reprisal as a result of:
  1. The applicant exercised a workplace right.
  1. The alleged adverse action occurred and fell within the categories of prohibited reasons including discrimination,
  1. the conduct that violates an employee's protections altering position, discrimination, victimisation, bullying and intimidation and harasment (sic).
  1. some voluminous chronologies have been provided to the other bodies and there is significant material currently before the commission and I have no qualms in that matterial (sic) being considered or that the matter be joined to the matter currently before Commissioner Power.
  1. The QPS continue to victim blame, mobbing conduct, gas lighting, isolation, vilification and intmidation (sic) and harassment (sic).
  1. An employer must not take any "adverse action" against an employee because of their workplace rights, the exercise of those rights, or the proposal to exercise them.[4]
  1. [10]
    On 1 July 2024, the Applicant and First and Second Respondents participated in a conciliation conference in relation to the Application before Industrial Commissioner Knight.[5] By agreement, the Applicant attended an IME on 15 August 2024.[6]
  2. [11]
    On 30 August 2024, the Applicant resigned from his employment.[7]
  3. [12]
    On 23 September 2024, the First Respondent received a copy of the IME report.[8]
  4. [13]
    On 31 October 2024, the Applicant and the First and Second Respondents participated in a conciliation conference before Industrial Commissioner Knight.[9]
  5. [14]
    Following the Applicant filing his Amended Application on 4 November 2024, the First and Second Respondents filed an objection to the Amended Application in accordance with r 22 of the Tribunals Rules, which provides:
  1. 22
    Objecting to amended application
  1. (1)
    A party served with an amended application may object to the amendment—
  1. (a)
    by filing a response in the approved form within 7 clear days after being served; or
  1. (b)
    if the application is scheduled for hearing within the 7 days—at the hearing.
  1. (2)
    The response must state—
  1. (a)
    whether the objection is to all or part of the proposed amended application; and
  1. (b)
    if the objection is to part of the proposed amended application—which part; and
  1. (c)
    concise reasons for the objection.
  1. (3)
    The party must immediately serve the response on all other parties to the proceeding.
  1. [15]
    On 12 November 2024, before any Directions Orders were issued, the Applicant filed submissions in reply to the Response to the Amended Application filed by the First and Second Respondents.
  1. [16]
    On 19 November 2024, the proposed Third to Ninth Respondents filed an objection to the Amended Application, after having been served the original Application by the Applicant on 12 November 2024.
  2. [17]
    On 22 November 2024, I issued a Directions Order in relation to the Respondents' objection to the Amended Application, giving the parties an opportunity to file any further material sought to be relied upon.
  3. [18]
    On 3 December 2024, Crown Law on behalf of all Respondents, advised that they did not seek to file any further material with respect to the Amended Application.
  4. [19]
    The Applicant did not seek to file any further material with regard to his Amended Application.

Submissions

  1. [20]
    I have carefully considered all submissions but have determined not to approach the writing of this decision by summarising the entirety of those arguments. I have briefly summarised the parties' positions below.

The Respondents' position

  1. [22]
    The First and Second Respondents outlined their objection to the Amended Application as it:
  • Contains allegations beyond the Commission's jurisdiction to hear and determine in the present proceedings.
  • Contains numerous errors with respect to referencing and summaries of legislative provisions.
  • Seeks to introduce respondents against whom the Applicant discloses no cause of action.
  • Does not comply with r 19 of the Tribunals Rules;
  • Contains vague and incomplete allegations that cannot be responded to.
  • Contains unparticularised and conclusory statements that the Applicant has workplace rights, and adverse action was taken against him, which cannot be responded to.
  • Contains impossible and illogical allegations which cannot be responded to.[10]
  1. [23]
    The proposed Third to Ninth Respondents repeated and relied on the submissions made on behalf of the First and Second Respondents and objected to the Amended Application because it discloses no cause of action against them.[11]

The Applicant's position

  1. [24]
    The Applicant's submissions do not specifically provide any grounds for which the Amended Application should be allowed, rather, they address each paragraph of the Respondents' objections and advise whether the Applicant contends with the paragraph or not – sometimes with a brief explanation.
  2. [25]
    With respect to the reasons for the Respondents' objection to the Amended Application, the Applicant provided the following response:

The applicant contends with paragraph 18 of The First and Second Respondents response object to the Amended Application however the amended grounds for application in the second paragraph note specifically whilst other legislative provisions have been cited, the purpose of each matter addressed is to be within the context of the adverse action conduct. The Applicant again confirms that on provision of further directions material will be filed in support of the allegations made this is clarified, further particularised the first paragraph of EJF2. Further it is noted that the logical allegations as they pertain to adverse actions and breaches of Chapter 8 of the IR act are expanded through the chronologies and material previously filed that speak to the to allegations directly relevant and subject to this matter GP 2024/22.[12]

Relevant Legislation

  1. [26]
    Rule 18 of the Tribunals Rules allows for an application to be amended before a hearing in accordance with the following:
  1. 18
    Amending an application before hearing
  1. (1)
    An application may be amended, before the hearing of the application, by the applicant filing an amended application that incorporates the amendments.
  1. (2)
    The amended application must replace the whole of the application.
  1. (3)
    The registrar may make a directions order if the registrar considers it necessary because of the amended application.
  1. 19
    Form of amendments
  1. (1)
    An amendment must be distinguished from the original text by—
  1. (a)
    if text is being added—underlining or shading the added text; or
  1. (b)
    if text is being deleted—crossing out the deleted text.
  1. (2)
    An amended application must be in the approved form.
  1. [27]
    Rule 22 of the Tribunals Rules provides that a party served with an amended application may object to the application by:
  1. 22
    Objecting to amended application
  1. (1)
    A party served with an amended application may object to the amendment—
  1. (a)
    by filing a response in the approved form within 7 clear days after being served; or
  1. (b)
    if the application is scheduled for hearing within the 7 days—at the hearing.
  1. (2)
    The response must state—
  1. (a)
    whether the objection is to all or part of the proposed amended application; and
  1. (b)
    if the objection is to part of the proposed amended application—which part; and
  1. (c)
    concise reasons for the objection.
  1. (3)
    The party must immediately serve the response on all other parties to the proceeding.
  1. [28]
    Rule 23 of the Tribunals Rules confers power on the Commission to determine whether to allow or disallow the amended application:
  1. 23
    Determination of amended application
  1. (1)
    If a party objects to all or part of an amended application, the court, commission or registrar may, after hearing the objecting party, allow or disallow the proposed amendment.
  1. (2)
    The court, commission or registrar may make the decision on the terms the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate.

Consideration

  1. [29]
    The first issue I am presented with, is that the Amended Application does not comply with r 19 of the Tribunals Rules. That is, the Amended Application does not show amendments that are distinguished from the original text by—
  1. (a)
    if text is being added—underlining or shading the added text; or
  1. (b)
    if text is being deleted—crossing out the deleted text
  1. [30]
    Rather, the Amended Application is filed as an entirely new Form 2 – General Application to Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. 
  2. [31]
    Rule 226 of the Tribunals Rules provides:
  1. 226
    Effect of failure to comply with rules
  1. (1)
    A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity and does not of itself render a proceeding, document, step taken or order made in a proceeding, a nullity
  1. (2)
    If there has been a failure to comply with these rules, the court, commission, a magistrate or the registrar may -
  1. (a)
    set aside all or part of a proceeding; or
  1. (b)
    set aside a step taken or order made in the proceeding; or
  1. (c)
    declare a document or step taken to be ineffectual; or
  1. (d)
    declare a document or step taken to be effectual; or
  1. (e)
    make another order that could be made under these rules; or
  1. (f)
    make another order dealing with the proceeding generally as the court, commission, magistrates or registrar considers appropriate.
  1. [32]
    Notwithstanding that r 226 of the Tribunals Rules expresses that failure to comply with the rules does not necessarily render the document a nullity, I have determined to disallow the Amended Application. I will address my reasoning below with reference to the parties' respective positions.

Lack of jurisdiction

  1. [33]
    The Schedule attached to the Amended Application (EJF2) seeks to introduce several new allegations which relate to breaches of various legislation. Specifically, the Applicant alleges contraventions of ss 7 and 8 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (AD Act) and ss 19 and 28 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHS Act).

AD Act

  1. [34]
    The Respondents submitted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint to determine the allegations submitted by the Applicant with respect to the AD Act.[13]
  2. [35]
    The Respondent submitted that ss 7 and 8 of the AD Act are not provisions that can be contravened.[14]Further, s 174B(a)(iv) of the AD Act empowers the Commission to hear and decide complaints that are referred to it under the AD Act. Pursuant to s 166 of the AD Act, the Respondent submits that the Commission's jurisdiction is only enlivened after a complaint is referred to it.[15] They submit the allegations raised by the Applicant concerning contraventions of the AD Act are beyond the Commission's jurisdiction to determine. A complaint must first be accepted by the QHRC and then proceed through the usual process before any referral is made under s 166 of the AD Act.[16] That has not occurred in this case.
  3. [36]
    The Applicant submitted that "whilst other legislate provisions have been cited, the purpose of each matter addressed is to be within the context of the adverse action conduct".[17]
  4. [37]
    Section 278(1)(c) of the IR Act says that one of the purposes of the General Protections part is to "provide protection from workplace discrimination".
  5. [38]
    Section 285 of the IR Act states that (emphasis added):
  1. 285
    Protection
  1. (1)
    A person must not take adverse action against another person—
  1. (a)
    because the other person—
  1. (i)
    has a workplace right; or
  1. (ii)
    has, or has not, exercised a workplace right; or
  1. (iii)
    proposes to or proposes not to, or has at any time proposed to or proposed not to, exercise a workplace right; or
  1. (b)
    to prevent the exercise of a workplace right by the other person.
  1. [39]
    Section 282(1)(d) of the IR Act defines "adverse action" as action "taken by an employer against an employee if the employer discriminates between the employee and other employees of the employer".
  2. [40]
    Section 295 of the IR Act provides:
  1. 295
    Discrimination
  1. (1)
    An employer must not take adverse action against a person who is an employee, or prospective employee, of the employer because of the person's sex, relationship status, pregnancy, parental status, breastfeeding, age, race, impairment, religious belief or religious activity, political belief or activity, trade union activity, sex work activity, gender identity, sexuality, family responsibilities or association with, or in relation to, a person identified on the basis of any of these attributes.
  1. Note—
  1. This subsection is a civil penalty provision.
  1. (2)
    However, subsection (1) does not apply to action that is—
  1. (a)
    not unlawful under an anti-discrimination law; or
  1. (b)
    taken because of the inherent requirements of the particular position concerned; or
  1. (c)
    if the action is taken against a staff member of an institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, taken—
  1. (i)
    in good faith; and
  1. (ii)
    to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.
  1. (3)
    Each of the following is an anti-discrimination law—
  1. (a)
    the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cwlth);
  1. (b)
    the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth);
  1. (c)
    the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth);
  1. (d)
    the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwlth);
  1. (e)
    the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.
  1. [41]
    I do not agree with the Respondents' submission that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's complaints regarding discrimination, so long as they fall within the context of Chapter 8 of the IR Act. Section 282 of the IR Act defines "adverse action" which includes action taken by an employer if the employer discriminates between the employee and other employees of the employer. If the discrimination alleged falls within the scope of Chapter 8 of the IR Act, it can be the subject of a General Protections Claim.
  2. [42]
    I cannot identify any 'workplace right' the Applicant says to have exercised in the Amended Application, which he alleges is the causal factor to the Respondents discriminating between him and other employees of the First Respondent. That is not satisfactory for this type of Application. Out of an abundance of fairness to the Applicant, I have taken into account that he has not yet had the benefit of being able to particularise his complaints within a Statement of Facts and Contentions.
  3. [43]
    While the Applicant has referenced specific legislative provisions contained within the AD Act (some which are not capable of being breached), the Applicant submitted that "the purpose of each matter addressed is to be within the context of the adverse action conduct". Adverse action includes action taken by an employer against an employee, if the employer discriminates between the employee and other employees of the employer.[18]
  4. [44]
    On that basis, I have not disallowed the Amended Application for want of jurisdiction in that Application's claim ought to have gone through the QHRC.

WHS Act

  1. [45]
    The Respondents submitted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's complaints insofar as they relate to breaching the WHS Act. The Respondent submitted that:
  1. 28.
    As noted at paragraph 35(e) below, the First Respondent cannot contravene s 28 of the WHS Act. Notwithstanding, the First and Second Respondents set out below their objection to the substance of the Applicant’s allegation, that the First Respondent failed to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the provision of safe systems of work, contrary to s 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act.
  1. 29.
    A failure to comply with the duties in s 19 of the WHS Act is an offence under ss 31, 32 or 33 of the WHS Act. Proceedings for these offences may only be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Work Health Safety Prosecutor.7
  1. 30.
    There is no power for either of those prosecuting authorities in the WHS Act or elsewhere to refer such an offence to the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and determine any alleged contravention of s 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act in these proceedings.
  1. 31.
    Further, whether in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, the Applicant has no standing to take proceedings for these offences.
  1. 32.
    Further or alternatively, s 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act does not bestow on the Applicant a private right of action which he is entitled to pursue in this jurisdiction. Any common law action in negligence for personal injury must be the subject of litigation brought in the relevant State court, not the Commission. There is no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim here.[19]
  1. [46]
    The Applicant again relied on his submission that "whilst other legislative provisions have been cited, the purpose of each matter addressed it to be within the context of the adverse action conduct".
  2. [47]
    The allegations relating to breaches of the WHS Act are extracted from the EJF2 Amended Application below:

Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work

Allegations: The QPS failed in its duty to provide a safe system of work, allowing bullying to persist.

Relevant Legislation:

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 28: Employers must ensure a safe system of work.

Example:

Despite my complaints, the QPS did not address the toxic behaviours, compromising my safety. Some of these examples are provided above I have retained emails and contemporaneous notes in relation to these matters.

Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work

Allegations: The QPS failed in its duty to provide a safe system of work, allowing bullying to persist.

Relevant Legislation:

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 28: Employers must ensure a safe system of work.

Example:

Despite my complaints, the QPS did not address the toxic behaviours, compromising my safety. Some of these examples are provided above I have retained emails and contemporaneous notes in relation to these matters.

…

c. Duty to Provide Safe Premises

Allegations: The QPS breached its duty to provide a safe workplace by not considering my limitations and the plethora of medical material and reports in their possession and control.

Relevant Legislation

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 28: Employers must ensure safe premises.

Example:

The QPS Attempted on several occasions without consultation of medical professionals and my treatment team attempted to place me in psychologically demanding roles despite my ongoing recovery needs.

…

  1. [48]
    I accept the Respondents' submissions that there is no power for the Commission to hear and determine whether any alleged contravention of the WHS Act occurred. Failure to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the provision of safe systems of work, is an offence pursuant to ss 31-33 of the WHS Act. Proceedings for these offences can only be initiated by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor.[20]
  2. [49]
    Therefore, the inclusion of the allegations that the Respondents failed to ensure safe systems of work and to provide a safe workplace are not relevant to these proceedings.

Should the Commission allow the Amended Application?

  1. [50]
    In Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation Queensland, Industrial Organisation of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2),[21] Deputy President Merrell outlined the authoritative considerations for determining whether to allow an amended application, which include:
  1. (a)
    the object is to do justice between the parties according to law;[22]
  1. (b)
    having regard to r 6 of the Tribunals Rules, important considerations are the effect of the delay and costs;[23]
  1. (c)
    the point the litigation has reached;[24]
  1. (d)
    the nature and importance of the amendment to the applying party;[25]
  1. (e)
    whether the amendment is brought in good faith;[26] and
  1. (f)
    the explanation given by the party seeking the amendment weighed against the effects of any delay and the objectives of the Tribunals Rules.[27]
  1. [51]
    The Commission must also consider performing its functions in a way that is consistent with the objects of the Act and avoids unnecessary technicalities and facilitates the fair and practical conduct of proceedings under the Act.[28]

The object is to do justice between the parties according to law

  1. Vague and unparticularised allegations
  1. [52]
    The Respondent submitted that the allegations as particularised in the Amended Application are vague and unparticularised, making it "incapable of being responded to" and having the effect of not "adequately putting the First and Second Respondents on notice of the claim they are required to answer".[29] They submitted:
  1. (a)
    at item 5, that ‘the [broader] issues in general include but are not limited to…’;
  1. (b)
    at item 5, that the ‘adverse actions include but are not limited to…’; and
  1. (c)
    at Schedule EJF2, ‘Note these are but some examples they are not a complete list… [sic]’.
  1. [53]
    Further, the Respondents submitted:
  1. 54.
    The Applicant states, at item 5 of the Amended Application, the bare conclusion that a list of purported actions (seemingly taken by all of the Respondents, but that is not stated or particularised) are adverse actions.
  1. 55.
    The First and Second Respondents object to this list of actions for a number of reasons.
  1. 56.
    Firstly, it contains a number of references which have no commonly understood legal meaning. The Applicant alleges one such adverse action was a ‘moral injury in his employment’, without explaining what a ‘moral injury’ is. Further, the Applicant alleges a further adverse action in ‘deny, attack, reverse, victim offender’. This phrase has no known legal meaning, and the Applicant offers no explanation of it. The First and Second Respondents should not have to guess at the precise nature of the allegation they must meet.9
  1. 57.
    Secondly, the Applicant states, in the list, conclusions of adverse action, and what may be the effects of adverse actions, but does not particularise the actions which are said to constitute adverse action within the meaning of s 282(1) of the IR Act. For example:
  1. (a)
    the Applicant concludes that adverse action was taken against him by the ‘failure of alteration of the my position to my detriment [sic]’, ‘discrimination between the me and other employees [sic]’, and ‘victimisation’, but the Applicant does not articulate what actions are said to have resulted in these legal conclusions; and
  1. (b)
    the Applicant refers to a ‘moral injury’ and a ‘psychological/psychosocial injury’ but the suffering of an injury itself cannot be adverse action, only the result of an adverse action. The Applicant does not particularise what the adverse action(s) is which he alleges have caused these alleged injuries.
  1. 58.
    Thirdly, the list contains vague statements which are incapable of being responded to. Relevantly, the Applicant refers to ‘Consistent, active, and targeted delays and unwillingness to address medical material in the possession and control of the respondent and their agents’. It is not clear what the alleged action is, who is alleged to have taken it, when it was alleged to have been taken, or who the Applicant refers to by the ‘respondent’ (noting there are nine).
  1. 59.
    Fourthly, while the First and Second Respondents maintain that the Applicant does not articulate any actions which are capable of constituting adverse action within the meaning of s 282(1) of the IR Act, the Applicant makes no attempt to identify the basis on which he says the alleged actions constitute adverse action, nor which of the permutations of adverse action within s 282(1)(a) to (d) of the IR Act are said to be relevant.
  1. 60.
    While there are some tangential references (i.e., referring to the alteration of the Applicant’s position or discrimination between him and another employee), these are not articulated with any coherence or precision that would allow the First and Second Respondents to understand the legal case they are asked to meet, or to respond to it.
  1. [54]
    In their submissions, the Respondents emphasise the importance of precise identification of allegations in a general protections claim, as recognised in Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service[30] and Byrne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health).[31]
  2. [55]
    However, the circumstances in Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service[32] and Byrne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[33] are different because both those cases address the requirement to adequately particularise a claim within one's Statement of Facts and Contentions. The Applicant has not filed his Statement of Facts and Contentions, nor has he been asked to file a Statement of Facts and Contentions.
  3. [56]
    The allegations within an initiating application do not need to be as extensively particularised. At this stage of the process, the Respondents only need to be put on notice as to the Applicant's case, to enable them to file an Employer Response to the application. This enables the Member conferencing the matter to do so efficiently with the benefit of knowing each party's positions on the matter. It is not expected that an initial application will set out an applicant's case with exhaustive particularity, such as defining "legal meanings" of terms that are used in the Application. That is a matter for the Statement of Facts and Contentions.
  4. [57]
    Notwithstanding these observations, I do find it is certainly unhelpful that the Amended Application has not at minimum, listed all the "issues", "adverse actions" and "examples" the Applicant claims to have occurred, to allow a fulsome response from the Respondents. It is also extremely unhelpful that the Applicant has not set out the grounds of his case in a way that has identified a relevant conduct to an adverse action he alleges to have been taken against him, after exercising a workplace right which is defined and connected to the adverse action. I do empathise with the Respondents' argument on this point, as the Amended Application is difficult to comprehend as a General Protections Application. However, the Applicant has not been afforded the opportunity to particularise his case within his Statement of Facts and Contentions. It is not my view that the Applicant ought to particularise his claim in the detail the Respondents suggest.
  1. Errors and illogical allegations
  1. [58]
    The Respondent submitted that most of the legislative references and submissions made by the Applicant in his Amended Application are incorrect. The errors contained within the Amended Application are as follows:[34]
  1. (a)
    The Applicant states that s 7 of the AD Act ‘prohibits direct discrimination based on protected attributes such as race and family responsibilities’. It does not. Section 7 of the AD Act states that the AD Act prohibits those matters, but s 7 does not do the work of prohibiting those matters. Chapter 2, Part 4 of the AD Act contains various prohibitions against discrimination in particular areas. For example, s 15 of the AD Act prohibits a person from discriminating against another person in various ways in the work area.
  1. (b)
    The Applicant states that s 8 of the AD Act ‘prohibits indirect discrimination’. It does not. Section 8 of the AD Act defines ‘discrimination on the basis of an attribute’, in particular explaining the interpretation of the words ‘on the basis of’. As stated above, Chapter 2, Part 4 of the AD Act contains various prohibitions against discrimination in particular areas.
  1. (c)
    The Applicant states that s 119 of the AD Act ‘defines harassment as unwanted conduct that offends, humiliates, or intimidates’. It does not. Section 119 of the AD Act defines sexual harassment (not harassment) as happening if a person (inter alia) ‘engages in any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person’8 and the person engages in that conduct either with the intention of offending, humiliating or intimidating the other person or in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct.
  1. (d)
    The Applicant states ‘Section 119A: Defines workplace bullying as repeated unreasonable behaviours causing harm’. There is no s 119A in the AD Act, nor any other provision of the AD Act which defines (or prohibits) workplace bullying.
  1. (e)
    The Applicant states that s 28 of the WHS Act obligates employers to ‘ensure a safe system of work’ and to ‘ensure safe premises’. It does not. Section 28 of the WHS Act imposes duties on workers, including to take reasonable care for their own health and safety. Section 19(3)(c) of the WHS Act obligates a person conducting a business or undertaking to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the provision of safe systems of work.
  1. (f)
    The Applicant states that s 52 of the ‘WorkCover Queensland Act 1996’ obligates employers to ‘assist injured workers in their return to work’. No such legislation exists (it was repealed on 1 July 2003), nor does s 52 in either the WHS Act or the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCR Act) impose such an obligation. Obligations are imposed on employers of workers who have sustained a compensable injury by s 228(1)(b) of the WCR Act to take all reasonable steps to assist or provide the worker with rehabilitation during the prescribed period for the worker.
  1. [59]
    The Applicant's response to this is again, that was that he "contends with paragraphs 19-36 The First and Second Respondents submission and has addressed this in paragraph 18 above". The Applicant's submissions at paragraph 18 provided:

The applicant contends with paragraph 18 of The First and Second Respondents response object to the Amended Application however the amended grounds for application in the second paragraph note specifically whilst other legislative provisions have been cited, the purpose of each matter addressed is to be within the context of the adverse action conduct. The Applicant again confirms that on provision of further directions material will be filed in support of the allegations made this is clarified, further particularised the first paragraph of EJF2. Further it is noted that the logical allegations as they pertain to adverse actions and breaches of Chapter 8 of the IR act are expanded through the chronologies and material previously filed that speak to the to allegations directly relevant and subject to this matter GP 2024/22.[35]

  1. [60]
    I accept the Respondents' submission on this point. The errors contained within the Amended Application are not simple typographical errors, rather, the errors are complete misrepresentations of relevant legislation. The Applicant has referred to and defined provisions inaccurately, in some instances, creating definitions for provisions that do not exist.
  2. [61]
    The errors render the Amended Application difficult for the Respondents to respond to, as well as making it almost impossible for the Applicant to prove.
  3. [62]
    The Applicant stated in his Amended Application that "the adverse action was taken because I exercised and proposed to exercise and during the time was exercising my workplace rights".[36] It is claimed that "causation or direct link between the exercise of the workplace right and the adverse action taken by the respondents via examples are annext (sic) to the schedule EJF2".[37]
  4. [63]
    It is unclear to me what "workplace right" the Applicant claims to have exercised to have been subjected to the "adverse actions" that are outlined in EJF2. That in entirely unsatisfactory. The heading "the broader issues in general include but are not limited to", I can only assume are the Applicant's alleged "workplace rights":

The right to be free from unlawful discrimination

The right of psychological safety in the workplace

The right of fairness and timeliness in decision making surrounding health and wellbeing

The right not to suffer prejudice or adverse actions based on protected attributes

The right to raise grievance and obtain timel (sic) resolution without fear, delay and non-action

constructive actions (specifically the action that appears voluntary being my resignation but I contend is forced

  1. [64]
    Section 284 of the IR Act defines 'workplace right':
  1. 284
    Meaning of workplace right
  1. (1)
    A person has a workplace right if the person—
  1. (a)
    has a right to the benefit of, or has a role or responsibility under, an industrial law, industrial instrument or order made by an industrial body; or
  1. (b)
    is able to start, or participate in, a process or proceedings under an industrial law or industrial instrument; or
  1. (c)
    is able to make a complaint or inquiry—
  1. (i)
    to an entity having the capacity under an industrial law to seek compliance with that law or an industrial instrument; or
  1. (ii)
    if the person is an employee—in relation to the person’s employment.
  1. [65]
    EJF2 is extracted below in its entirety:
  1. Note these are but some examples they are not a complete list however I will attach the respective timeline and previously filed documents and communication, emails and letters and medical material supporting this in compliance with future directions from the QIRC.

Allegations: Discrimination Based on Race, Disability, and Family Responsibilities

Relevant Legislation:

Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991:

Section 7: Prohibits direct discrimination based on protected attributes such as race and family responsibilities 1

Section 8: Prohibits indirect discrimination1

Example:

The QPS denied my request for flexible working arrangements initially and then invited me to reapply after Commissioner Pidgeon clarified that the issue was not about flexible work arrangements but rather a reasonable adjustment. This persistent and protracted conduct shows that the QPS continues to treat me less favourably than other employees, which constitutes discrimination based on disability and family responsibilities. They also failed to meaningfully engage with me in relation to reasonable adjustments (I will attach the respective timeline and previously filed documents supporting this in compliance with future directions from the QIRC).

Allegations: Psychological Injury and Duty of Care

Relevant Legislation:

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 19: Employers must ensure a safe workplace, including preventing mental harm2

Example:

Despite my documented psychological distress, the QPS did not take adequate steps to address it, exacerbating my condition. This failure to act constitutes a breach of their duty of care, resulting in psychological harm. Further they failed to make any decision that when I raised a formal grievance in relation to these protracted issues (I will attach the respective timeline and previously filed documents supporting this in compliance with directions from the QIRC). Further this resulted in further decompensation of health and safety.

Allegations: Vicarious Liability

Relevant Legal Principle:

Employers are responsible for their employees’ actions within the scope of employment.

Examples:

Marshall Bostocks: Discriminatory behaviour towards me on several occasions during duty hours and outside of duty hours reflects the QPS’s liability.

Bill Heasly: Refusing to address the issues raised and thanking me for continuing to support Mr. Bostock, not respecting my requests and boundaries for arranging meetings, and not allowing me to have a support person present during meetings.

Sexual Harassment Allegation: Serious allegation of sexual harassment levelled by Mr. Bostock after a court walk-around fishing expedition to elicit information from court staff, duty lawyers, LAQ, and other stakeholders.

Injury Management Officers: Causing delays, providing correspondence that they are “seeking advice from management,” attempting to release confidential medical material to the workgroup, advising no file open despite ongoing treatment, and refusing to address issues or maintain meaningful communication.

Carolyn Harrison – directing an IME to be undertaken (no issue is taken with the act of the IME) The aspect most concerning is Mr Ian PARK and Carrie Davidson attending my premises when the IME could have been emailed further confirmation confirmed this was not protocol or policy and a waste of resources and tax payer funds to send these individuals to my home some 2 hour round trip which caused significant distress and anxiety to my wife who responded to this brazen attempt of fear and intimidation tactic.

The QPS’s failure to intervene allowed the bullying to continue in some cases during the period of unpaid sick leave, outside of work hours and weekends and even post my resignation with the service aiding an unlawful act.

Harassment and bullying by Queensland Police Service (QPS)

Allegations: The QPS has subjected me to harassment and bullying, affecting my well-being and work environment.

Relevant Legislation:

Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991:

Section 119: Defines harassment as unwanted conduct that offends, humiliates, or intimidates.

Section 119A: Defines workplace bullying as repeated unreasonable behaviours causing harm.

Examples:

Mr. Bostock consistently belittled me in front of colleagues, creating a hostile work environment.

Mr. Bostock directed two other staff members not to assist me in preparing arrest court files on busy callover days, where there were over 50 files to prepare.

On another occasion, Mr. Bostock slammed files on my desk in an abrupt manner.

Mr. Bostock stood over me in an intimidating manner on multiple occasions.

On one occasion, Mr. Bostock refused to leave when I asked him to, escalating his behaviour within the courtroom and speaking to me in a manner intended to cause fear and intimidation.

The second respondent, knowing that I lodged a formal grievance (PSA/2023/209), issued an IME direction intended to cause fear, intimidation, and harassment, knowing the circumstances, and filed material in relation to the fair treatment appeal that was on foot at the time.

Mr. Park and Ms. Davidson attended my premises to deliver the IME on instructions of the second respondent, causing fear, intimidation, and harassment to me, my wife, and our young son.

Mr. Bostock raised serious allegations, and when I attempted to seek clarification with Mr. Park, nothing has been addressed, and the allegation remains unresolved since December 18, 2023.

The QPS must take swift action to eradicate harassment and bullying, ensuring a safe and respectful workplace for all employees. I expect a thorough investigation and appropriate measures to prevent recurrence.

Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work

Allegations: The QPS failed in its duty to provide a safe system of work, allowing bullying to persist.

Relevant Legislation:

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 28: Employers must ensure a safe system of work.

Example:

Despite my complaints, the QPS did not address the toxic behaviours, compromising my safety. Some of these examples are provided above I have retained emails and contemporaneous notes in relation to these matters.

Duty to Provide a Safe System of Work

Allegations: The QPS failed in its duty to provide a safe system of work, allowing bullying to persist.

Relevant Legislation:

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 28: Employers must ensure a safe system of work.

Example:

Despite my complaints, the QPS did not address the toxic behaviours, compromising my safety. Some of these examples are provided above I have retained emails and contemporaneous notes in relation to these matters.

Duty to Assist in Return to Work and Suitable Employment by Queensland Police Service (QPS)

Addressing the Queensland Police Service’s (QPS) failure to fulfill its duty to assist in my return to work and provide suitable reasonable adjustments.

Allegations: The QPS has not adequately supported my return to work after a period of absence.

Relevant Legislation:

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996:

Section 52: Employers must assist injured workers in their return to work.

Example:

Despite medical recommendations, the QPS did not engage in a meaningful process to facilitate treatment and my return.

b. Suitable Reasonable Adjustments

Allegations: The QPS failed to provide reasonable adjustments during my recovery, which precipitated the flexible work arrangement application that was refused and ultimately brought before Commissioner Pidgeon.

Relevant Legal Principle:

Employers must offer alternative duties that align with an injured employee’s capacity.

Example:

Instead of accommodating my restrictions, the QPS assigned tasks unrelated to my skills or medical condition. Mr. Heasly asserted that he was not required to engage with my treating practitioners before moving me to another module or location. Despite material provided by the treating team to support the concerns, there was no engagement with the treating team at any level.

c. Duty to Provide Safe Premises

Allegations: The QPS breached its duty to provide a safe workplace by not considering my limitations and the plethora of medical material and reports in their possession and control.

Relevant Legislation

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011:

Section 28: Employers must ensure safe premises.

Example:

The QPS Attempted on several occasions without consultation of medical professionals and my treatment team attempted to place me in psychologically demanding roles despite my ongoing recovery needs.

Submission on Constructive Dismissal through Forced Resignation

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns due to the employer's conduct, which has made the working environment intolerable. This submission outlines the key elements of constructive dismissal, focusing on my forced resignation as a result of employer conduct.

Key Elements of Constructive Dismissal

Employer's Conduct: The QPS’s actions and behaviours have been protracted calculated, unreasonable, and created a hostile or intolerable working environment. This includes but is not limited to harassment, discrimination, significant changes to job duties, and other forms of mistreatment outlined within this document.

My Resignation: I resigned as a direct result of the QPS’s conduct. The resignation in my submission was not voluntary but rather a forced decision due to the circumstances created by the QPS.

Causal Link: There is a clear causal link between the QPS's conduct and my resignation. Through the examples and issues, I have raised within this document I demonstrate that my resignation was a foreseeable consequence of the actions of the QPS.

Examples of Conduct Leading to Forced Resignation

Harassment and Discrimination: Persistent harassment or discrimination several protected characteristics created an intolerable, unsafe, and untenable work environment, leading to my forced resignation. (I will attach my letter in support of this when future directions are provided)

Significant Changes to Job Duties: changes to my job duties, responsibilities, and working conditions were in parts made (reference to the raising bullying complaints and the allegations made by Mr Bostock of sexual harassment) in addition to attempted to be made without consent this can be considered unreasonable and lead to constructive dismissal.

Failure to Address Complaints: the QPS via Officer in charge, Inspectors, and other personal failed to address legitimate complaints or grievances raised by me, contributing to a hostile work environment, and causing me forcefully to resign.

  1. 4.
    Conclusion
  1. These submissions and the action exposed to collectively demonstrate how the QPS's conduct gives rise to a general protection claim under the Queensland Industrial Relations framework. The persistent discrimination, failure to ensure a safe workplace, by demonstrating harassment, bullying, failure to provide a safe work environment, and inadequate support for my return to work over a protracted period. Additionally vicarious liability for employees' actions all contribute to the violation of my workplace rights.
  1. [66]
    I cannot identify the "causation or direct link" between each of these "adverse actions" and the "workplace right" the Applicant alleges to have or to have exercised, apart from the last submission regarding the Applicant's "Constructive Dismissal through Forced Resignation", albeit not very well explained.
  2. [67]
    In the list of "the broader issues in general include but are not limited to", which I assume are the Applicant's "workplace rights", the Applicant then alleges he has a workplace right "not to suffer prejudice or adverse actions based on protected attributes". As the Respondent pointed out, the allegation then is that all adverse actions were taken against the Appellant because of a number or reasons, including that the Applicant has a right not to have adverse action taken against him. That does not make sense. 
  3. [68]
    The Applicant has not made any submissions regarding why the amendments are sought, nor the importance of them to his case. If anything, the amendments (which are to the extent of an almost entirely new application) confuse the matter, containing illogical allegations and inaccurate legislative references.  The Applicant has not provided any reasonable justification in his submissions as to why he is seeking the inclusion of these amendments. While it may have been a point of discussion during the conciliation conference, that was before another Member of this Commission.  I was not party to that discussion, nor should I have been, as the Member hearing the matter. It is my role to determine whether to allow the Amended Application based on the material filed under the Directions Order, as well as the Amended Application itself.
  4. [69]
    For these reasons, I do not find the Amended Application achieves the object of doing justice between the parties according to law. It contains extensive legislative errors which confuse and complicate the matter. I have also not been provided any reasonable justification why the amendments are sought. On that basis, I will not allow the Amended Application.

The effect of the delay and costs and the point the litigation has reached

  1. [70]
    I do not consider the effect of the delay and costs would be significant if I were to allow the Amended Application. The matter is still in early stages. Mindful of my obligation to avoid unnecessary technicalities and facilitate the fair and practical conduct of proceedings however, I am minded not to allow the Amended Application based on the reasons above.

The nature and importance of the amendment to the applying party, whether the amendment is brought in good faith and the explanation given by the party seeking the amendment weighed against the effects of any delay and the objectives of the Tribunals Rules

  1. [71]
    The Applicant has not made any submissions regarding the importance of the amendments to his case. To that end, I do not know why they are being sought. In the absence of submissions from the Applicant regarding why the amendments are sought and the explanation for such, I cannot consider them in supporting his application to amend his originating application.

Multiple Respondents

  1. [72]
    With respect to the multiple Respondents sought to be joined to these proceedings, the Respondents submit that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear claims that relate to the proposed Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Respondents.[38] Further, or in the alternative, the Respondents submitted that there is no cause of action against the Second or the proposed Third, Fifth and Ninth Respondents.[39] The Respondents also submit that the Second Respondent is not a proper respondent.
  2. [73]
    The Amended Application does not mention the proposed Third, Fifth and Ninth Respondents. Neither does the Initial Application. Accordingly, I see no reason why those Respondents should be added to these proceedings.
  3. [74]
    The proposed Sixth Respondent is mentioned in the Amended Application, however there is no basis provided as to why the Sixth Respondent is a proper Respondent. There is no mention of the Sixth Respondent in the Initial Application. By virtue of my rejection of the Amended Application, the proposed Sixth Respondent will not be added to these proceedings.
  4. [75]
    With respect to the proposed Seventh Respondent, the Applicant alleges in the Amended Application "discriminatory behaviour towards me on several occasions during duty hours and outside of duty hours reflects the QPS liability". The Applicant also lists some examples of alleged harassment and bullying by Mr Bostock. The proposed Seventh Respondent is not mentioned in the Initial Application. As I have disallowed the Amended Application based on the reasons above, the proposed Seventh Respondent will not be added to these proceedings.
  5. [76]
    The Respondent also submitted that no cause of action against the Second Respondent arises from the Amended Application. The only reference in the Amended Application to the Second Respondent is that Ms Harrison directed "an IME to be undertaken", but then the Applicant goes on to say, "no issue is taken with the act of the IME".[40] On this basis, the Respondent submitted that there is no cause of action against the Second Respondent. I will not remove the Second Respondent from these proceedings, given that allegations relating to the Second Respondent are more extensive in the Initial Application, which remains the application of these proceedings.
  6. [77]
    With respect to the proposed Fourth and Eighth Respondents, the Applicant alleges they attended his premises to deliver a direction to attend an IME, which is an allegation contained within his Initial Application. Although I have disallowed the Amended Application in its entirety, as the Applicant is seeking to have them added to these proceedings, I will consent to that because the allegations against them are set out in the Initial Application. I will order, pursuant to s 539(b)(iv) of the IR Act, that the Fourth and Eighth Respondents be joined to the proceedings. They will become the Third and Fourth Respondents respectively.

Conclusion

  1. [78]
    I order accordingly.

Orders

  1. 1.
    The Amended Application is disallowed.
  1. 2.
    Pursuant to s 539(b)(iv) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), Mr Ian Park is joined to these proceedings. Mr Ian Park will become the Third Respondent.
  1. 3.
    Pursuant to s 539(b)(iv) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), Ms Carrie Davidson is joined to these proceedings. Ms Carrie Davidson will become the Fourth Respondent.

Footnotes

[1] Amended Application filed 4 November 2024, EJF1.

[2] Ibid 2-3.

[3] Ibid EJF2.

[4] Initial Application filed 28 May 2024, 4-5. 

[5] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [8].

[6] Ibid [9].

[7] Ibid [10].

[8] Ibid [11].

[9] Ibid [12].

[10] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [18].

[11] Response to Amended Application filed 19 November 2024, [9].

[12] Applicant's Response to Amended Application filed 12 November 2024, [18].

[13] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [21].

[14] Ibid [22].

[15] Ibid [23]-[24].

[16] Ibid [25].

[17] Applicant's Response to Amended Application filed 12 November 2024, [18].

[18] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 282.

[19] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [28]-[32].

[20] Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 230.

[21] [2021] QIRC 278 [25].

[22] Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175, [30] (French CJ).

[23] Ibid [102] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid [103].

[27] Ibid.

[28] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 447(2).

[29] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [51].

[30] [2021] QIRC 255 [477]-[480].

[31] [2022] QIRC 013 [13]-[15].

[32] [2021] QIRC 255.

[33] [2022] QIRC 013.

[34] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [35].

[35] Applicant's Response to Amended Application filed 12 November 2024, [18].

[36] Amended Application filed 4 November 2024, 4.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Response to Amended Application filed 11 November 2024, [41].

[39] Ibid [44].

[40] Amended Application filed 4 November 2024, EJF2, 2.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Fraser v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) and Ors

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 165

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    McLennan IC

  • Date:

    27 Jun 2025

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
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2009) 239 CLR 175
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) HCA 27
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2009) HCA 27
Cite 2 - (2009) HCA 27
Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation Queensland, Industrial Organisation of Employees v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) [2021] QIRC 278
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 278
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 278
Byrne v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 13
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 13
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 13
Cite 3 - [2022] QIRC 13
Gilbert v Metro North Hospital Health Service [2021] QIRC 255
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 255
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 255
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 255

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.