Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Sandford v State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service) - [2025] QIRC 208

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

Sandford v State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service)[2025] QIRC 208

Sandford v State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service)[2025] QIRC 208

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Sandford v State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service) [2025] QIRC 208

PARTIES:

Sandford, Alan

Appellant

v

State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service)

Respondent

CASE NO:

PSA/2025/106

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a fair treatment decision

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2025 

MEMBER:

O'Neill IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

The Orders contained in paragraph [109] of these reasons for decision.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against a fair treatment decision – where the appellant submitted an individual employee grievance alleging bullying – where the Local Action decision maker not satisfied that bullying had been established – where the appellant submitted a stage two internal review request – where the appellant appeals the internal review decision – whether the decision was fair and reasonable – decision was fair and reasonable

INDUSTRIAL LAW – SUPPRESSION ORDER – where the Commission considering acting of its own volition to order suppression of the name of the subject officer of grievance   – where principles of open justice apply – consideration of principles of open justice and circumstances where Commission may exercise discretion to suppress or anonymise name of subject officer – orders made to suppress name of subject officer and withhold Commission file from search or copy

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 273-275, s 562B, s 562C, s 564(3), s 580

Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 97

Public Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld) ss 12, 13

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 129, s 131, s 133

Individual Employee Grievances Directive 11/20 cl 5, 8 and 9

Workplace Investigations Directive 01/24 cl 8.1

CASES:

Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263

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

Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 16

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

J v L & A Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [1993] QCA 012; [1995] 2 Qd R 10

Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252

Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 193

Reasons for Decision

Introduction and background

  1. [1]
    Professor Alan Sandford ('the Appellant') is employed as the Director Medical Academic Development with Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service ('CQHHS') ('the Respondent').
  2. [2]
    During his employment with CQHHS, Mr Sandford reported directly to Ms Lisa Blackler, Chief Executive.
  3. [3]
    On 4 December 2024, the Appellant submitted a formal grievance alleging bullying, intimidation, marginalisation, coercion and the creation of a psychologically unsafe workplace as a result of the conduct of Dr X[1], a senior medical practitioner within CQHHS.
    1. [4]
      A Stage 1 Local Action decision was released to the Appellant on 17 April 2025 ('the Local Action decision') in response to the Appellant's grievance. The Appellant was dissatisfied with this decision and sought a review under HR Policy E12.
    1. [5]
      On 14 May 2025, Ms Blackler issued an internal review decision, upholding the Local Action decision on the grounds that it was fair and reasonable.
    1. [6]
      The Appellant filed an Appeal Notice in the Industrial Registry on 4 June 2025 appealing Ms Blackler's internal review decision dated 14 May 2025.
    1. [7]
      I am satisfied that the internal review decision appealed against was fair and reasonable and I confirm that decision.
    1. [8]
      My reasons follow.

    Is the Appellant entitled to appeal?

    1. [9]
      Section 131(1)(d) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act') provides that an appeal may be made against a fair treatment decision. Section 133(d) of the PS Act provides that for fair treatment decisions, it is the public sector employee who is aggrieved by the decision who may appeal.
    2. [10]
      I am satisfied that the Appellant was aggrieved by the decision.
    1. [11]
      Section 129 of the PS Act relevantly provides:

    129 Definitions for part

    In this part—

    …

    fair treatment decision means a decision a public sector employee believes is unfair and unreasonable.

    1. [12]
      I am satisfied that the decision is one that is able to be appealed pursuant to s 131 of the PS Act, and further, that the Appellant is entitled to appeal.
    2. [13]
      Section 564(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('IR Act') requires an appeal to be lodged within 21 days after the day the decision appealed against is given
    3. [14]
      The Appellant received the decision letter on 14 May 2025 and the Appeal Notice was filed in the Industrial Registry on 4 June 2025. I am satisfied that the appeal has been brought within the required time.

    What decisions can the Commission make?

    1. [15]
      Section 562C(1) of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:
  • confirm the decision appealed against;
  • set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate; or
  • set the decision aside and substitute another decision.

Appeal Principles

  1. [16]
    Section 562B(2) and (3) of the IR Act provides that the appeal is decided by reviewing the decision appealed against "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".
  1. [17]
    The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing,[2] but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the decision-maker and the associated decision-making process.[3]  Because the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.[4]
  1. [18]
    Findings made by the decision-maker, which are reasonably open to them, should not be disturbed on appeal. Even so, in reviewing the decision appealed against, the Commission member may allow other evidence to be taken into account.[5]
  2. [19]
    The issue for my determination is whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.[6]

Relevant Directive and Policies

Directive 11/20: Individual employee grievances policy

  1. [20]
    Directive 11/20: Individual employee grievances policy ('Directive 11/20') relevantly states:

5.  Matters that can be subject of an individual employee grievance

  1. 5.1
    An individual employee grievance under this directive is a grievance submitted by a current public service employee who has an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that:

…

  1. the conduct or behaviour of an employee, agent or contractor is unfair and unreasonable
  1. the conduct or behaviour of an employee, agent or contractor constitutes bullying in the workplace, sexual harassment, racial vilification, religious vilification or vilification on the grounds of gender identity or sexuality
  1. the conduct or behaviour of an employee is a breach of the Code of Conduct

…

8.  Individual employee grievance resolution principles

…

  1. 8.2
    Individual employee grievances are to be managed and resolved using a three-step process:
  1. local action (the first stage of the individual employee grievance process)
  1. internal review of a decision made following local action (the second stage of the individual employee grievance process), and
  1. where applicable, external review of a decision made at internal review (the third stage of the individual employee grievance process).
  1. 8.3
    Agencies, including managers and supervisors, must manage individual employee grievances:
  1. in accordance with principles of natural justice, including timely decisions and the provision of adequate reasons

…

(c) in accordance with the procedures in clause 9.

(Emphasis added)

…

  1. 9.
    Procedures for managing and resolving individual employee grievances
  1. 9.1
    Stage 1–local action

…

  1. An individual employee grievance submitted by an employee must be resolved in accordance with the agency’s individual employee grievance policy and procedures. This action may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:
  1. conducting preliminary enquiries to determine appropriate options for resolution of the individual employee grievance
  1. ADR strategies, including, facilitated discussion, mediation, conciliation or negotiation
  1. gathering information, including from witnesses, and/or
  1. other reasonable action in the circumstances.

…

  1. After a decision has been made about an individual employee grievance– including a decision to take no action under clause 9.1(c)–the agency must provide a written decision to the employee who submitted the grievance. The decision must:
  1. outline the action taken to manage the individual employee grievance and the outcome of this action
  1. provide the reasons for the decision, or the decision to take no action
  1. outline any action that the agency proposes to take, or will take, as a result of the decision; and
  1. inform the employee of their internal review rights outlined in Stage 2– internal review, including any relevant timeframes.

…

  1. 9.2
    Stage 2–internal review
  1. If an employee is dissatisfied with a decision made through local action, the employee may make a written request to the agency chief executive for an internal review.

…

  1. An internal review is to be completed by the chief executive or their delegate. The chief executive or delegate is to determine whether the decision made through local action was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

…

  1. At the completion of internal review, including a decision to take no further action under clause 9.2(e), the chief executive or delegate must provide a written decision The Reto the employee. This decision must:
  1. outline the action taken to review the decision made through local action
  1. outline the reasons for the decision, or the decision to take no further action
  1. outline any action that the chief executive or delegate proposes to take, or will take, as a result of the internal review, and
  1. outline any avenues of external review that may be available to the employee, including any relevant timeframes.

(Emphasis added)

Individual employee grievances HR Policy E12

  1. [21]
    The Respondent's Individual employee grievance policy defines workplace harassment/ bullying in the workplace as:

A person is subjected to workplace harassment if the person is subjected to repeated behaviour, other than behaviour amounting to sexual harassment, by a person, including the person’s employer, a co-worker or a group of co-workers, that:

•  is unwelcome and unsolicited

•  the person considers to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening

•  a reasonable person would consider to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening.

Workplace harassment does not include reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the Director-General (or delegate) in connection with the employee’s employment.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [22]
    In his Appeal Notice, the Appellant outlines a number of Appeal Grounds. These are as follows:
  • Mischaracterisation – The decision reduced the grievance to isolated events, which disregarded a documented pattern of bullying spanning three years.
  • Procedural flaws – Multiple witnesses identified in the grievance were never engaged. The process failed to satisfy procedural fairness.
  • Improper rejection of WHS-linked claims – Despite personal reports of psychological injury and systemic risk, no formal WHS assessment was conducted.
  • Denial of external investigation – The internal reviewer refused the request for independent investigation despite evidence of conflicts of interest and systemic dysfunction.

Appellant's Submissions

  1. [23]
    The Appellant filed his submissions on 23 June 2025 in accordance with an order of the Commission. The submissions can be summarised as below:
  • The Appellant contends that the 14 May decision was unfair, unreasonable and failed to comply with applicable industrial instruments and legislative obligations.
  • The Appellant submits that the internal review reduced the matter to two MDACAC meetings despite extensive evidence of repeated bullying and workplace risk. The Appellant further contends that the Respondent failed to address the long-term pattern of conduct detailed in the original grievance and made no efforts to contact any witnesses identified by the Appellant.
  • The Appellant contends that the Respondent failed to initiate a formal psychological risk assessment despite multiple breaches of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 ('the WHS Act') being identified.
  • The Appellant submits that the Respondent failed to act proportionately under Directive 17/20 (Workplace Investigations) when they rejected his request for an independent review due to conflicts of interest and escalating reputational and workforce impacts.
  1. [24]
    The Appellant seeks the following outcome from the appeal process:
  1. Set aside the grievance outcome dated 14 May 2025.
  2. Direct the appointment of an external independent investigator.
  3. Direct the undertaking of a WHS risk assessment in relation to the conduct of Dr X and associated impacts.
  4. Direct that CQHHS re-engage the relevant witnesses identified by the Appellant.

Respondent's Submissions

  1. [25]
    The Respondent filed their submissions on 7 July 2025 in accordance with an order of the Commission. The submissions can be summarised as follows:
  • Both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Grievance processes were procedurally fair, reasonable, and compliant with the requirements of HR Policy E12, Directive 11/20, and the principles of procedural fairness.
  • The Respondent contends that the Appellant's submissions fail to establish any error of substance in the process or the decision-making that would render the outcome unfair or unreasonable.
  • In response to the Appellant's contentions that the decision mischaracterised his grievance as isolated events, the Respondent submits that both stages of the grievance process explicitly considered the Appellant's allegations of a broader pattern of behaviour.
  • The Respondent contends that the Local Action delegate met with the Appellant and his representative from ASMOFQ, specifically to clarify these systemic allegations and to provide him the opportunity to supply further detail or other incidents or witnesses. Despite this, the Appellant continued to supply material that was largely generalised and emotive in nature and lacked specific examples.
  • It is contended that the Local Action decision carefully examined the two Medical and Dental Appointments Advisory Committee ('MDACAC') meetings (October and November 2024), and the evidence showed heated discussion, differing recollections, and confirmed that Dr X's tone at times was disrespectful.
  • The Respondent submits that the Stage 2 internal review conducted by Ms Blackler as the delegated decision-maker did not simply 'rubber-stamp' the Local Action  outcome. It is contended that the delegate carefully reviewed the Appellant's entire grievance record, the addendum, the union's request for external review, and the Local Action decision-making process.
  • The Respondent contends that Ms Blackler's decision letter demonstrates a genuine consideration of whether the Appellant's allegations of a three-year pattern were properly assessed. It is further submitted that the Appellant's grievance lacked dates, specific language or threats or direct evidence of ongoing hostility beyond the two meetings.
  • In response to the Appellant's contentions that CQHHS failed to contact identified witnesses, the Respondent submits that the HR Policy E12 does not set out a formal investigatory process with compulsory witness examination. They further contend that Ms Leov (the Local Action Decision-Maker) provided the opportunity for additional material to be provided however, no formal written statements from the witnesses were ever provided.
  • In response to the Appellant's contentions that the Respondent failed to meet their obligations under the WHS Act, the Respondent submits that at no stage of the grievance process was evidence found of repeated, unreasonable conduct amounting to bullying that created a foreseeable risk requiring a formal WHS risk assessment.
  • The Respondent submits that the broad, subjective claims which were made by the Appellant were not supported by sufficient factual details that would establish a WHS breach or warrant a formal investigation.
  • In response to the Appellant's allegation that he was unreasonably denied an external investigation, the Respondent submits that there is no legal obligation or policy that requires a grievance to be escalated to external review based solely on the complainant's request.
  • The Respondent contends that the decision maker rigorously assessed the request and concluded that the grievance failed to meet the necessary threshold of escalation to external review.
  • The Respondent submits that the Appellant was afforded procedural fairness throughout the entirety of the process as he and his union representative were given multiple opportunities to be heard and provide detailed written materials.

Appellant's submissions in reply

  1. [26]
    The Appellant did not provide any reply submissions.

Consideration

  1. [27]
    To determine this appeal, I am required to assess whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. I have read and considered all submissions and material provided to me even if I do not refer to specific documents or aspects of the submissions or material.
  2. [28]
    Deputy President Merrell in Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2)[7] ('Colebourne') considered the meaning of 'fair and reasonable' and concluded that it should be construed within the ordinary meaning of the phrase as used in the context of s 562B of the IR Act.[8]
  3. [29]
    In Colebourne his Honour further noted that assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable' is not an assessment of whether the decision was unreasonable only by reference to the legal standard.[9] His Honour concluded that assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable' permitted a review of both the factual merits and legal reasonableness of both the decision itself and the process of making that decision.[10]

Ground 1 - Mischaracterisation

  1. [30]
    The Appellant in the first ground of appeal contends that the internal review decision reduced the grievance to isolated events, which disregarded a documented pattern of bullying spanning three years.
  2. [31]
    The Appellant lodged his grievance with CQHHS Workforce Division on 4 December 2024. Unfortunately, neither party has provided the original grievance document in the material they have filed.
  3. [32]
    On 7 February 2025, the Appellant submitted an addendum document with further information and a list of potential witnesses. In that document the Appellant:
  • Alleges that he has witnessed and also had reported to him over the last three years poor and unacceptable behaviour by Dr X involving allegations of bullying, intimidation, disrespect, marginalisation, coercion and unfair behaviour.
  • Alleged a flagrant disregard to the formality of CQHHS professional standards and policies and procedures by Dr X.
  • Identified a triggering event that occurred on 22 October 2024 in a virtual meeting of the MADACAC chaired by the Appellant. The Appellant alleged that Dr X directed a personal and hostile verbal exchange at himself during the meeting.
  • Alleged poor treatment of  high performing junior doctors by Dr X on a repeated basis. Other than a broad allegation, this was not further particularised with dates, or descriptions of particular incidents. The Appellant noted that some of these doctors were willing to provide statements/evidence about their experiences.
  1. [33]
    Provided a dot point list of broad allegations of behaviour by Dr X that the Appellant alleged contravened the Code of Conduct and created an unsafe work environment from a workplace health and safety perspective. Once again, these allegations were made in a broad-brush manner and were not further particularised.
  2. [34]
    I note that in that correspondence the Appellant does not in fact make any mention of the MADACAC meeting held on 12 November 2024 (this may have been mentioned in the original grievance form).
  3. [35]
    In the Local Action decision Ms Leov confirms that she met with the Appellant and his union representative on 14 March 2025 to clarify the Appellant's concerns and to afford the Appellant the opportunity to provide Ms Leov with any additional information in relation to the MDACAC meetings.
  4. [36]
    In the Local Action decision, the decision-maker addresses the evidence of what occurred in the two MDACAC meetings, and the relevant witness versions in determining that she was not satisfied that bullying behaviour had been established as defined in HR Policy E12. The Local Action decision-maker was not satisfied that the "repeated behaviour" element of bullying was met, and therefore the bullying allegation was not substantiated.
  5. [37]
    The Local Action decision then went on to address the Appellant's allegations of bullying by Dr X over the last three years. The Local Action decision maker noted that HR Policy E12 is an individual employee grievance mechanism which permits an employee to raise matters that directly and personally affect that employee. Ms Leov also noted that the policy does not allow one employee to lodge a grievance on behalf of colleagues or to pursue issues in which the employee is only an observer.
  6. [38]
    The Local Action decision goes on to record a lack of particularisation by the Appellant of the broad allegations, including a failure to provide specific dates, witnesses or documentation linking those broader allegations to the Appellant personally. Ms Leov further found that the material supplied did not establish that the Appellant was directly affected by the conduct. Ms Leov as a consequence determined that she was unable to accept that portion of the Appellant's grievance.
  7. [39]
    In the internal review decision, the delegated decision-maker Ms Blackler in addressing this ground noted that the limited material available did not establish that the Appellant was personally and directly impacted by the alleged conduct. Ms Blackler considered HR Policy E13 – Workplace Harassment, which she noted requires allegations to be sufficiently detailed to allow assessment as to whether the conduct meets the definition of workplace bullying. The internal review decision concludes that whilst the grievance broadly refers to a pattern of poor behaviour, it did not identify specific incidents with enough detail to permit a finding as to whether the threshold of bullying had been met.
  8. [40]
    The decision-maker further noted the requirement under ss 12 and 13 of the Public Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld) that a disclosure must be based on information that tends to show wrongdoing, not merely a belief or suspicion. The internal review decision confirms that the Queensland Ombudsman's Public Interest Disclosure Standards clarify that a discloser must have an honest and reasonable belief based on specific and factual information. Broad references, or general claims of 'a three-year pattern' were not supported by sufficient detail or direct evidence.
  1. [41]
    Ms Blackler therefore determined that the Local Action decision to exclude those broader allegations of bullying from the Stage 1 grievance process was fair and reasonable. The internal review decision notes that despite being given the opportunity, the Appellant had not submitted enough information to meet the requirements of procedural fairness.
  1. [42]
    The internal review decision goes on to conclude that HR Policy E12 is an individual employee grievance mechanism which did not enable employees to raise grievances on behalf of colleagues or pursue concerns in which they were not directly involved.
  1. [43]
    The Appellant's submissions on this ground merely state that the internal review decision failed to acknowledge a documented and witnessed pattern of repeated bullying behaviour and psychological harm, contrary to HR Policy E12 and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld).
  1. [44]
    Both the Local Action decision and the internal review decision have properly (in my view) reviewed the very general and broad allegations made by the Appellant about a three-year history of bullying behaviour by Dr X.
  1. [45]
    The respective findings in both the Local Action decision and the internal review decision that the Appellant had failed to provide sufficient particulars and evidence about the alleged history of bullying by Dr X, in my view were not only open on the material available to the decision-makers, but were in fact appropriate. The information/evidence submitted by the Appellant in support of his grievance in my view did lack particularity and largely appeared to be constituted by broad allegations or complaints about the alleged actions and conduct of Dr X. I am also satisfied that the Appellant was afforded the opportunity of providing more detail in relation to his allegations but did not take up this opportunity.
  1. [46]
    Other than the MDACAC meeting on 22 October 2024, the Appellant did not descend into any detail regarding his broad allegations against Dr X, including essential details such as:
  • dates and times;
  • a sufficient description of the event or incident which would permit the Health Service to make appropriate enquiries or investigations;
  • the identification of persons who may have been present during the incident and some description of what evidence they could provide.
  1. [47]
    Although the Appellant has provided a list of names of people who he alleges were willing to provide evidence in support of the grievance, the Appellant has not in the addendum document confirmed the nature of the evidence that the witnesses could provide, whether this related to incidents of bullying or misconduct that were directed personally at him, or whether the proposed evidence would relate to events involving the witnesses.
  2. [48]
    It further appears that in relation to a number of the proposed witnesses, the Appellant himself was not personally present during the event or incident involving that witness and Dr X.
  3. [49]
    It was open to the Appellant to source witness statements from those witnesses in support of his grievance either himself or via his representative and provide those statements as attachments either to the grievance document or his addendum document. The Appellant chose to not adopt this course of action.
  4. [50]
    In light of the above, I am satisfied that the decision of the two delegated decision-makers to not accept the broader allegations of the Appellant of a history of bullying by Dr X as part of the grievance was fair and reasonable.
  1. [51]
    Given the analysis of the relevant witness evidence relating to the two MDACAC meetings undertake by the Local Action decision-maker, I am satisfied that Ms Blackler's decision to confirm the Local Action decision that bullying had not been established was fair and reasonable. In the internal review decision, Ms Blackler observed in relation to the evidence available in relation to the MDACAC meetings:

I am satisfied that her assessment was appropriate and that the conduct described, while reflective of challenging and possibly robust workplace interactions, was isolated and does not constitute repeated, unwelcome behaviour that meets the definition of workplace harassment under HR Policy E13, nor does it amount to a breach of the expected standards of respectful behaviour under the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service.

  1. [52]
    I am satisfied that this decision was open to Ms Blackler on the available evidence. In relation to this ground of appeal, the Appellant has not established that the internal review decision was not fair and reasonable.

Ground 2 – Procedural flaws and inadequate witness engagement

  1. [53]
    The Appellant alleges that multiple witnesses were identified in the grievance and these witnesses were not interviewed by the Local Action decision-maker. The Appellant alleges that the process failed to satisfy procedural fairness.
  2. [54]
    In the Appellant's submissions he alleges that witnesses were identified in the grievance (citing as examples, Dr Arnel Polong, Maria Kananghinis, Dr Ghosh, Professor Navathe) were not contacted, and no effort was made to test the evidence supporting claims of repeated harassment and systemic dysfunction.
  1. [55]
    In the internal review decision, Ms Blackler noted in relation to this ground of appeal:
  • Once again confirmed that HR Policy E12 provided for an individual employee grievance process which permits an employee to raise matters that directly and personally affect them. Where other employees have personally experienced inappropriate conduct, they were encouraged to submit their own grievance in accordance with the policy.
  • She did not accept the Appellant's contention that HR Policy E12 permitted the reporting of behaviours that impact the safety and wellbeing of the workplace, thus enabling the Appellant to raise alleged bullying of other employees.
  • In relation to the alleged failure to contact witnesses, the internal review decision notes that the Appellant when nominating the witnesses, failed to include information as to what they had seen, experienced, or what events they would be able to provide evidence of. Ms Blackler concluded that in the absence of this type of information, it would not be appropriate for CQHHS to contact these individuals, or to initiate a broad, unfocused inquiry. She noted that consideration of witness evidence must be grounded in clear, specific and relevant allegations, not general or assumed experiences.
  • Unless the nominated witnesses directly witnessed the conduct the Appellant alleged occurred between himself and Dr X, they could not be considered to be witnesses to the Appellant's grievances.
  1. [56]
    Dealing firstly with the issue as HR Policy E12 and whether it permits an employee to lodge a grievance on behalf of another employee, in my view when the policy is properly construed, the conclusion of both of the decision-makers that the policy is an individual employee grievance process is correct.
  2. [57]
    Clause 2.1 of the policy provides for the matters that can be the subject of an individual employee grievance. That clause states that:

A current employee can make an individual grievance where the employee has an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that one or more of the following have occurred:

…

  • the conduct or behaviour of an employee, agent or contractor constitutes bullying in the workplace, sexual harassment, racial vilification or vilification on the grounds of gender identity or sexuality

…

  1. [58]
    I consider that it is implicit within that clause that the conduct complained of has been directed at the employee lodging the grievance. This construction is supported in my view by the contents of clauses 2.3 to 2.7 and the description of 'Stage 1 – Local Action' in Attachment One to the policy.
  2. [59]
    I further note that Directive 11/20 Individual employee grievances in clause 12 defines the 'parties to an individual employee grievance' to include:

… the person who submits the individual employee grievance and the respondent (either the agency or employee who is the subject of the individual employee grievance) to the individual employee complaint.

  1. [60]
    This definition in my view militates against a construction of Directive 11/20 and HR Policy E12, that an employee is able to lodge a grievance on behalf of other employees in relation to events that only relate to those other employees.
  2. [61]
    In relation to the Appellant's allegation regarding a failure to contact witnesses, I note that clause 9.1(b) of Directive 11/20 confirms that an individual employee grievance must be resolved in accordance with the agency's individual employee grievance policy and procedures. Clause 9.1(b) further confirms that the action may include but is not limited to:
  • conducting preliminary enquiries to determine appropriate option for resolution of the grievance; and
  • gathering information, including from witnesses.

(emphasis added)

  1. [62]
    This is consistent with the description of actions that a local action decision-maker can take as set out in Attachment One to HR Policy E12 for Stage 1 Local Action.
  2. [63]
    There is no specific requirement for a Local Action Decision Maker to obtain written witness statements. Further, the Local Action Decision Maker is given a discretion regarding the obtaining of information from witnesses, that is, whether this is to occur at all and the extent to which it occurs.
  3. [64]
    In my view, the manner in which the Local Action decision-maker has approached the resolution of the Appellant's grievance appears to be consistent with the discretions provided by both Directive 11/20 and HR Policy E12.
  4. [65]
    The conclusions of Ms Blackler in relation to the issues raised by the second ground of appeal were open to her in light of the contents of Directive 11/20 and HR Policy E12 and in my view were fair and reasonable.

Ground 3 – Improper rejection of systemic and work health and safety related claims

  1. [66]
    In the Appeal Notice, the Appellant contends that despite personal reports of psychological injury and systemic risk, no formal WHS assessment was conducted.
  2. [67]
    The Appellant's appeal submissions go no further than to allege that the rejection of WHS-linked concerns disregards the employer's duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to assess and mitigate psychosocial risks.
  3. [68]
    In the internal review decision dated 14 May 2025, Ms Blackler concluded that whilst perceptions of risk or concerns about workplace culture are valid and should be acknowledged, the initiation of formal investigations or interventions must be grounded in clear and verifiable evidence of a hazard.
  4. [69]
    The internal review decision confirms that proceeding without such a foundation may not only compromise procedural fairness but could inadvertently introduce new psychosocial risks or expose the Health Service to unnecessary legal or reputational consequences. The decision concludes that for any further action, including a risk assessment or review of workplace controls, more particularised information would be required.
  5. [70]
    The Respondent's review submissions note that neither the local action decision nor the internal review decision found evidence of repeated, unreasonable conduct amounting to bullying that created a foreseeable risk requiring formal WHS risk assessment under the WHS Act.
  6. [71]
    The Respondent further submits that the internal review decision noted that whilst the Appellant described a culture of incivility, his evidence lacked specificity and corroboration. The Respondent's submissions further note that in the internal review decision Ms Blackler found that broad and subjective claims, such as 'pervasive unkindness' and 'hostile environment' were not supported by sufficient factual detail.
  7. [72]
    The Respondent maintains that the approach taken in the internal review decision was lawful, reasonable, and a proportionate approach to the Appellant's allegations.
  8. [73]
    In my reasons relating to ground one of the Appellant's appeal grounds I have found that the Appellant's allegations of a broad history of various misconduct and bullying behaviour by Dr X for three years were not sufficiently particularised or supported by evidence. I have confirmed that it was a fair and reasonable decision for both delegated decision-makers to not further address those broad allegations in the grievance process.
  9. [74]
    In my view it was open to Ms Blackler to conclude that the threshold to warrant conducting a workplace health and safety risk assessment had not been established on the basis of the material provided by the Appellant in support of the grievance. I am satisfied that this decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

    10. Ground 4 – Denial of external investigation

  10. [75]
    In the Appeal Notice the Appellant in support of this ground states that the internal reviewer refused his request for an independent investigation despite the evidence of conflicts of interest and systemic dysfunction.
  11. [76]
    In his appeal submissions, the Appellant contends that the refusal to appoint an external reviewer undermines the impartiality of the process given the identified conflicts of interest within QCHHS leadership.
  12. [77]
    The Respondent in its written submissions maintains that there is no policy or legal obligation to escalate grievances to an external investigation solely based upon a complainant's request. The Respondent further contends that HR Policy E12 prescribes a clear, staged internal process for managing grievances, with escalation to external investigation only when strictly justified in the circumstances.
  13. [78]
    The Respondent's submission contend that the internal review decision displayed careful assessment of this issue. Ms Blackler found that the Appellant's claims were insufficiently specific, lacked repeated documented incidents, and that via the grievance process, the Appellant had already been provided multiple opportunities for the Appellant to clarify and provide further evidentiary submissions.
  14. [79]
    In my reasons addressing Ground 2 of the Appellant's appeal grounds, I have noted in paragraphs [60] and [61] above, that clause 9.1(b) of Directive 11/20 and HR Policy E12 (in Attachment One which is in the same terms as clause 9.1(b) of Directive 11/20) provide a broad discretion to a local action decision-maker to determine the extent of enquiry or investigation that is required by the grievance.
  15. [80]
    I also note that in the internal review decision, Ms Blackler makes reference to Directive 17/20 – Workplace Investigations in reaching a finding that she was not satisfied that the threshold for initiating a workplace investigation, as outlined in that Directive, had been met in this grievance process.
  16. [81]
    I note that Directive 17/20 has been superseded by Directive 01/24 – Workplace Investigations ('Directive 01/24') which commenced on 10 June 2024. Clause 8.1 of Directive 01/24 relevantly provides:
  1. 8.
    Deciding whether to conduct a workplace investigation
  1. 8.1
    A chief executive of a public sector entity may decide to investigate the substance of a grievance or allegation relating to a public sector employee’s work performance or personal conduct. In deciding to commence a workplace investigation, a chief executive must consider:
  1. the seriousness of the alleged conduct
  1. whether or not there is sufficient evidence already available, and whether a workplace investigation in these circumstances is an appropriate use of entity resources
  1. how procedural fairness requirements will be met
  1. whether there is a more appropriate option to resolve the matter through management action, alternative dispute resolution, or implementation of positive performance management strategies
  1. any other factors that the chief executive considers appropriate.
  1. [82]
    In the internal review decision, Ms Blackler noted that in considering the Appellant's request for an internal review, she had carefully assessed the matter in line with her statutory obligation to manage public resources efficiently and responsibly. Whilst acknowledging the Appellant's request for an external investigation, the delegated decision-maker concluded that she did not consider it reasonable or necessary to appoint an external investigator or commit additional public resources Ms Blackler concluded that the concerns raised, as currently framed and evidenced, did not reach the level of seriousness or specificity required to warrant an external investigation or justify further resource investment.
  2. [83]
    The manner in which Ms Blackler exercised the discretion provided by the combination of clause 9.1(b) of Directive 11/20, HR Policy E12 and clause 8.1 of Directive 01/24 in my view were appropriate given the material/evidence provided by the Appellant in support of his grievance. It was open to Ms Blackler to conclude that an external investigation was not warranted in the circumstances. I am therefore satisfied that this aspect of the internal review decision was also fair and reasonable.

Suppression Order

Relevant Law

  1. [84]
    Section 451 of the IR Act bestows general powers on the commission, and relevantly provides:
  1. General powers
  1. The commission has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the performance of its functions.
  2. Without limiting subsection (1), the commission in proceedings may—

…

  1. make an order it considers appropriate.
  1. [85]
    Section 580 of the IR Act provides for the directions the commission may give in respect of confidential material and is set out in the following relevant terms:

580  Confidential material tendered in evidence

…

  1. The court, commission or registrar may direct—
  1. a report, or part of a report, of proceedings in an industrial cause not be published; or
  2. evidence given, records tendered or things exhibited in proceedings for an industrial cause be withheld from release or search.

…

  1. The direction may be given if the court, commission or registrar considers —
  1. disclosure of the matter would not be in the public interest; or
  2. persons, other than parties to the cause, do not have a sufficient legitimate interest in being informed of the matter.

…

  1. [86]
    Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Rules') provides the Commission with a power to de-identify judgements and redact information from  judgements if there is good reason to do so. Rule 97 relevantly provides as follows:

97  Publishing decisions etc.

…

  1. The court, commission or registrar may, in the public interest or for another reason the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate –
  1. withhold publication of a document; or
  2. modify a document, before publication, in a way that does not affect the essence of the document.

…

  1. [87]
    In Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd[11] ('Aurizon') the respondent sought to have the names of the individual workers who were involved in the dispute to be de-identified. The application was supported by the applicant union. His Honour, O'Connor VP relevantly held as follows:
  1. [40]
    The starting point in considering an application to suppress or to withhold names of witnesses or parties is a fundamental principle of open justice; 'that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done'. This is a central feature of the administration of justice under the common law.
  2. [41]
    The open justice principle operates not only as an overarching principle guiding judicial decision-making and various aspects of procedure, it also gives rise to a number of substantive open justice rules that, in the usual course of events, a court must follow. Such rules include: first, that judicial proceedings are conducted, and decisions pronounced, in 'open court'; second, that evidence is communicated publicly to those present in the court; and third, that nothing should be done to discourage the making of fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings, including by the media.
  3. [42]
    However, the rules to which the open justice principle gives rise are not absolute. Whilst the principles of open justice will usually require the publication of the names of those involved in the proceedings, there are numerous statutory exceptions.
  1. [43]
    The Commission has the power to de-identify judgments and redact information from judgments if there is a good reason to do so.  Rule 97 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) recognises that power.

…

  1. [44]
    It is accepted that the discretion to anonymise a decision might be exercised in favour of not identifying persons who are the victim of sexual assault or discrimination, children, or persons whose private financial affairs are relevant to a decision. It is also accepted that the discretion may be exercised in circumstances where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice in particular proceedings or to avoid some other relevant harm.
  1. [45]
    In my opinion, the application to withhold the names of the two workers can be best explained on the basis that in the absence of a restriction on publicity, damage will be caused to the individuals to such an extent and of such a kind as requiring some relief, in the interests of justice.
  1. [46]
    As was observed by Mahoney J in John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v The Local Court of New South Wales, these are the 'unacceptable' consequences that sometimes arise in litigation. Of course, as observed by Pincus JA in J v L A Services Pty Ltd (No 2), 'there is a balancing exercise involved, with an initial heavy weighting in favour of publicity – an exercise involving considerations of fairness'. (citations omitted)
  1. [88]
    A comprehensive review of the relevant authorities that address the issue of suppression orders was recently undertaken by Industrial Commissioner Pratt in Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services).[12]

Consideration

  1. [89]
    The basis of the Appellant's grievance were allegations of bullying and misconduct by another senior medical practitioner who worked for CQHHS.
  2. [90]
    The Appellant's allegations against Dr X were serious, and included allegations of bullying, intimidation, disrespect, marginalisation, coercion and unfair behaviour by Dr X that the Appellant asserted created a psychologically unsafe environment. The Appellant further alleged that this behaviour had been ongoing for approximately three years.
  3. [91]
    The Appellant alleged that this type of behaviour/misconduct by Dr X had been directed at not only himself but also other medical staff including more junior doctors.
  4. [92]
    I have noted earlier in these reasons that the Appellant's allegations against Dr X were largely broad in nature and lacked detail and particulars. This was particularly the case in relation to the alleged three year history of bullying behaviour.
  5. [93]
    Further, on the basis of the evidence available to me, it does not appear that any of the other CQHHS staff members who had allegedly been subjected by Dr X to the type of behaviour set out in paragraph 90 above, had in fact formally complained about the alleged bullying. The Appellant's allegations regarding other staff members allegedly being bullied or intimidated by Dr X largely appeared to be hearsay evidence based on what the Appellant had been told by others.
  6. [94]
    Dr X is not a party involved in this public sector appeal. It is not clear whether he was even aware of the fact that the Appellant had lodged a grievance, or that the present appeal had been filed in the Commission. In those circumstances, Dr X may not even be aware of the allegations that have been made against him, or of the risk of those allegations being included in a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission which will be published on the Supreme Court Library website and available to be searched and read by any member of the public.
  7. [95]
    The allegations against Dr X at this time remain unsubstantiated. As noted earlier in this decision, in relation to the actions of Dr X during the two MDACAC meetings, both decision-makers during the determination of the grievance concluded that they were not satisfied that the actions of Dr X constituted 'workplace harassment' (bullying) as defined in HR Policy E12.
  8. [96]
    In light of the above matters, in finalising the decision I became concerned about there being a real risk of Dr X being denied procedural fairness and suffering reputational damage if Dr X's identity was mentioned in the published decision.
  9. [97]
    As a consequence, the Industrial Registry emailed the parties on 1 August 2025 raising my concerns about the potential of Dr X being denied procedural fairness. The parties were informed that I was considering anonymising Dr X's name in the decision utilising the power provided by r 97(3) of the IR Rules. The parties were given until 4:00 pm on Tuesday 5 August 2025 to confirm whether they consented or opposed to this course of action.
  10. [98]
    By email dated 5 August 2025, the Respondent confirmed that it had no objection to Dr X's name being suppressed in the decision.
  11. [99]
    The Appellant's union representative from the Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation Queensland ('ASMOFQ') provided an email dated 5 August 2025 which relevantly stated:

ASMOFQ raises a concern that, should Dr X's name and position be suppressed in the Commission’s published decision, it may have the unintended consequence of limiting transparency and accountability with respect to the conduct of the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service (CQHHS), its executive, and Dr X himself. The appeal documentation raises serious matters involving executive decision-making, leadership conduct, and governance integrity – issues that carry public interest implications, particularly in the context of a public health service.

We recognise that Dr X is not a named Respondent and that procedural fairness is an important consideration. However, where executive leadership has materially contributed to the alleged procedural deficiencies under review, anonymisation may risk shielding the structural issues at the heart of the appeal from proper scrutiny.

  1. [100]
    Whilst I note the observations of the Appellant, those observations appear to overstate the role and function of the Commission in this appeal. As noted above, pursuant to s 562B of the IR Act, the Commission's statutory function is to conduct a review of the internal review decision to determine whether that decision was fair and reasonable.
  2. [101]
    In the Aurizon[13] decision, Vice President O'Connor observed:
  1. [40]
    The starting point in considering an application to suppress or to withhold names of witnesses or parties is a fundamental principle of open justice; ‘that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’.[14] This is a central feature of the administration of justice under the common law.
  1. [102]
    That decision dealt with a workplace health and safety dispute which involved a historical allegation of sexual harassment of a female locomotive driver by a male locomotive driver. In the course of the Commission dealing with a dispute notice that had been filed pursuant to s 102B of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), an application was made to anonymise the names of both of the workers involved.
  2. [103]
    His Honour confirmed at paragraph [45] of Aurizon that the application to withhold the names of the two workers could be best explained on the basis that in the absence of a restriction on publicity, damage will be caused to the individuals to such an extent and of such a kind as requiring some relief, in the interests of justice.
  3. [104]
    In the present case, I am satisfied that there is a real risk of Dr X suffering significant reputational and professional damage which will not be able to be remedied unless his name and position within CQHHS is anonymised. I believe that the risk of Dr X suffering some form of damage is likely such that it is in the interests of justice to act under the power provided by the IR Rules. Given this, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion afforded by r 97(3) of the IR Rules to anonymise Dr X's name and position.
  4. [105]
    I further consider that it is also necessary to direct pursuant to the discretionary power provided by s 580(5) of the IR Act that the Commission file be withheld from release, search or copy absolutely, or until further order of the Commission. In the absence of that further order being made, the identity of Dr X could be ascertained simply by a person searching the Commission file.

Conclusion

  1. [106]
    The internal review decision of Ms Blackler appropriately considered the Appellant's concerns and was sound. I am satisfied that it was open to her to find that the Local Action decision made by Ms Leov, was fair and reasonable.
  2. [107]
    In all of the circumstances I consider the decision of Ms Blackler was fair and reasonable. The Appellant has failed to establish a basis to overturn the review decision of Ms Blackler.
  3. [108]
    For the reasons set out above, I consider it is appropriate in the interests of justice for the identity of the medical practitioner that was the subject of the Appellant's grievance to be de-identified/anonymised in this decision. I further consider that to preserve the confidentiality of the information contained on the Commission's file, it is also appropriate and necessary for an order that the file be withheld from release, search or copy absolutely, or until further order of the Commission.

Order

  1. [109]
    I make the following orders:
  1. 1.
    Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the review decision is confirmed.
  1. 2.
    The appeal is dismissed.
  1. 3.
    Pursuant to s 451(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) and r 97(3)(a) of Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), that any reference to the identity of the subject of the Appellant's grievance be de-identified. 
  1. 4.
    Pursuant to s 451(2)(c) and s 580(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I direct that all documents relevant to this matter be withheld from release, search or copy absolutely, or until further order of the Commission.

Footnotes

[1] The identity of the subject of the Appellant's grievance has been anonymised pursuant to rule 97(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the IR Rules').  I have also directed that the Commission be sealed from search or copy. The reasons for this are addressed at the end of these reasons.

[2] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5; Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 567(1).

[3] Ibid; Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 562B(2).

[4] Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10.

[5] Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 567(2).

[6] Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252, [60]-[61] (Byrne SJA).

[7] [2022] QIRC 16.

[8] Ibid, at [25], citing Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446. 

[9] Colebourne at [21]-[22] and [25].

[10] Ibid, at [23] citing Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the Public Service Act 2008.

[11] [2021] QIRC 263, [40] – [46].

[12] [2024] QIRC 193.

[13] Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263, [40] per O'Connor VP.

[14] R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] KB 256, [259].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Sandford v State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Sandford v State of Queensland (Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 208

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    O'Neill IC

  • Date:

    08 Aug 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
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees v Aurizon Operations Ltd [2021] QIRC 263
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 263
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 263
Cite 3 - [2021] QIRC 263
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
Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 16
Cite 2 - [2022] QIRC 16
J v L & A Services Pty Ltd[1995] 2 Qd R 10; [1993] QCA 12
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1993] QCA 12
Cite 2 - [1995] 2 Qd R 10
Page v Thompson [2014] QSC 252
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QSC 252
Cite 2 - [2014] QSC 252
Patterson v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 193
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 193
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 193
Pope v Lawler [1996] FCA 1446
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1996] FCA 1446
R. v Sussex Justices [1924] KB 256
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1924] KB 256

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.