Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Baldwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) - [2025] QIRC 224

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

Baldwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 224

Baldwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2025] QIRC 224

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Baldwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 224

PARTIES:

Baldwin, Anne Maree

Appellant

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

Respondent

CASE NO:

PSA/2024/179

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Fair Treatment Decision

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2025

MEMBER:

Caddie IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

The decision appealed against is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – Fair Treatment Appeal – where the appellant appeals an internal review decision upholding a local action decision relating to the appellant's lodged employee grievance – consideration of whether decision appealed against was fair and reasonable – where appellant alleges breach of human rights – decision was fair and reasonable.

LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS:

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ss 17, 25

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 272, 562B, 562C, 564

Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) s 12

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

Directive 11/20 Individual Employee Grievances

HR Policy E12 – Individual Employee Grievances

CASES:

Certain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children (2016) 51 VR 473

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)

Greenall v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2021] ICQ 19

Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) [2020] QSC 293

McNeil v State of Queensland (Electoral Commission of Queensland) [2023] QIRC 308

Owen-D'arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273

Reasons for Decision

Introduction and background

  1. [1]
    Ms Anne Maree Baldwin ('Ms Baldwin') is employed as an Advanced Epidemiologist Health Practitioner Level 5 at the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service ('the HHS').
  2. [2]
    Ms Baldwin's direct line manager is Ms Dusty-Lee Williams, Nursing Service Director, Public Health Unit at the HHS ('Ms Williams').
  3. [3]
    On 1 July 2024, Ms Baldwin lodged an Individual Employee Grievance ('IEG') that alleged unfair and unreasonable conduct and decision-making; bullying; misconduct and human rights breaches by Ms Williams. 
  4. [4]
    A Stage 1 Local Action Decision ('LAD') was released by Ms Joanne Shaw, Chief Operating Officer ('Ms Shaw') on 5 September 2024 in response to the IEG.
  5. [5]
    Ms Shaw found the allegations were not substantiated and proposed the following strategy to repair the line manager-employee relationship:[1]

With the information available to me, Ms William's behaviour and/or conduct and/or decision making as a line manager appears to have been, reasonable.

Notwithstanding, I am of the view … some of the instances outlined above could have been handled with more transparency and open communication between Ms Williams and yourself, and it is not my intention to detract from how you felt during each of these matters.

….

I would like to propose a facilitated discussion between yourself and Ms Williams…to ensure you both can participate in a transparent and respectful manner, with an intention to enable open and transparent communication, understand matters from the perspective of the other, and collectively agree on a mutual pathway forward.

  1. [6]
    On 19 September 2024, Ms Baldwin wrote to Ms Shaw and agreed to participate in a facilitated discussion with Ms Williams. Ms Baldwin also wrote to the HHS Chief Executive and sought an internal review of the LAD. 
  2. [7]
    Ms Haylee Farry, Executive Director Workforce ('Ms Farry') was authorised to conduct the Stage 2 Review. On 16 October 2024, Ms Farry issued an Internal Review Decision ('IRD'), upholding the LAD on the grounds 'it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.'[2]
  3. [8]
    On 6 November 2024, Ms Baldwin lodged an appeal of a fair treatment decision in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') and sought external review of the IRD.
  4. [9]
    Ms Baldwin sought either that the Commission set aside the decision and substantiate the allegations against Ms Williams, or that the matter be returned to a new decision-maker required to undertake a fresh review.[3]
  5. [10]
    For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the IRD subject of this appeal was fair and reasonable, and I confirm that decision.

Eligibility to Appeal

  1. [11]
    The Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act') provides that a fair treatment decision may be the subject of an appeal to the Commission.[4] As a public sector employee aggrieved by the decision, Ms Baldwin is entitled to appeal.[5]
  2. [12]
    The Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act') provides that appeals must be filed within 21 days after the decision was given.[6] Ms Baldwin received the decision on 16 October 2024 and filed her appeal within time on 6 November 2024. 

Relevant principles

  1. [13]
    The PS Act defines a 'fair treatment decision' as a decision 'a public sector employee believes is unfair and unreasonable.'[7]
  2. [14]
    The IR Act sets out that public service appeals to the commission are by way of review:
  1. 562B
    Public service appeal to commission is by way of review
  1. (1)
    This section applies to a public service appeal made to the commission.
  1. (2)
    The commission must decide the appeal by reviewing the decision appealed against.
  1. (3)
    The purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.
  1. …
  1. [15]
    In assessing whether a decision was 'fair and reasonable', the appeal is determined by reviewing the decision made, including consideration of the process of making the decision.[8] This is not by way of rehearing the substantive matter.[9] Findings made by the decision-maker, which are reasonably open to them, should not be disturbed on appeal.
  2. [16]
    The Act prescribes what decisions the Commission may make:
  1. 562C
    Public service appeals – decision on appeal
  1. (1)
    In deciding a public service appeal, the commission may –
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. (b)
    ….
  1. (c)
    for another appeal – set the decision aside and substitute another decision or return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.
  1. …

Directive and Policies

  1. [17]
    Directive 11/20 'Individual Employee Grievances' ('the Directive') states: 
  1. 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. (a)
    an administrative decision, which they are aggrieved by, is unfair and unreasonable
  1. (b)
    the conduct or behaviour of an employee, agent or contractor is unfair and unreasonable
  1. (c)
    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. (d)
    the conduct or behaviour of an employee is a breach of the Code of Conduct
  1. (e)
    an act or decision is not compatible with human rights or a decision failed to give proper consideration to a relevant human right under the HR Act.
  1. …
  1. 8.
    Individual employee grievance resolution principles
  1. 8.1
    Employees are required to ensure that individual employee grievances are submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the administrative decision, alleged conduct or alleged behaviour has occurred.
  1. 8.2
    Individual employee grievances are to be managed and resolved using a three-step process:
  1. (a)
    local action (the first stage of the individual employee grievance process)
  1. (b)
    internal review of a decision made following local action (the second stage of the individual employee grievance process), and
  1. (c)
    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. (a)
    in accordance with principles of natural justice, including timely decisions and the provision of adequate reasons;
  1. (b)
    in a manner that protects the privacy of the employee who has submitted the grievance subject to any legal disclosure obligations, such as the requirement to provide natural justice to the subject of the grievance; and
  1. (c)
    in accordance with the procedures in clause 9.
  1. 8.4
    All parties to an individual employee grievance:
  1. (a)
    must engage in the individual employee grievance process in good faith; and
  1. (b)
    be provided with regular and timely information by the decision maker in relation to the progress of the individual employee grievance.
  1. …
  1. 9.
    Procedures for managing and resolving individual employee grievances
  1. 9.1
    Stage 1 – local action
  1. (a)
    An employee must submit their individual employee grievance in writing to the appropriate delegate in their agency. The grievance must:
  1. (i)
    comply with the agency's individual grievance policy and procedures, unless the employee's grievance is made to the Commission Chief Executive (CCE) about the chief executive of an agency under clause 10, and
  1. (ii)
    include sufficient information to enable the agency to take appropriate action, including outlining the action that the employee considers would resolve the grievance. If the individual employee grievance does not include this information, the agency can request that additional information be provided by the employee.
  1. …
  1. 9.2
    Stage 2 – internal review
  1. (a)
    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. (b)
    A request for an internal review must:
  1. (i)
    be received by the chief executive within 14 days of the employee receiving a copy of the decision made through local action or a decision is taken be made under clause 9.1(e)
  1. (ii)
    clearly state the reasons for dissatisfaction with the decision made through local action, and not merely state a belief that the decision made through local action was unfair and unreasonable, and
  1. (iii)
    state the action the employee believes would resolve the grievance.
  1. (c)
    Once an agency receives a request for an internal review, the agency must notify the employee in writing:
  1. (i)
    that the request for internal review has been received by the agency
  1. (ii)
    of the name and contact information for a contact person for the internal review, and
  1. (iii)
    of the 14 day timeframe for making a decision in clause 9.2(f).
  1. (d)
    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. (e)
    If the chief executive or delegate is satisfied that:
  1. (i)
    the reasons for seeking an internal review are insufficient
  1. (ii)
    the request for internal review is frivolous or vexatious, or
  1. (iii)
    the employee has unreasonably refused to participate in local action to resolve the individual employee grievance
  1. The agency may decide to take no further action in relation to the request for internal review. The agency must give written reasons for its decision …
  1. [18]
    The Individual Employee Grievances HR Policy E12 is consistent with the Directive and includes the following relevant definitions:
  1. Definitions
  1. Workplace harassment/bullying in the workplace
  1. 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 or unsolicited
  • the person considers to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening
  • a reasonable person would consider to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening.
  1. 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.
  1. Repeated behaviour
  1. "Repeated" refers to the persistent nature of the behaviour and can involve a range of behaviours over time.
  1. A single incident of unreasonable behaviour is not considered to be workplace bullying, however may constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service.
  1. Unreasonable behaviour
  1. "Unreasonable" refers to behaviour that a reasonable person, having considered the circumstances, would see as unreasonable, including behaviour that is victimising, humiliating, intimidating or threatening.

Grounds of Appeal

  1. [19]
    In the Notice of Appeal Ms Baldwin claimed the Stage 2 Decision of 16 October 2024 was not fair and reasonable, with her grounds of appeal outlined as follows: 
  1. The assessment to arrive at the Stage 2 internal review outcome and described in the letter from Ms Farry, largely does not address the:
  1. –Substantial errors in fact demonstrated
  1. –Inadequate verification and investigation demonstrated
  1. –Unreasonable and inadequate assessment of evidence to determine findings
  1. –Lack of demonstrated assessment and provision of findings regarding several aspects in the Stage 1 outcome letter (dated 5 September 2024; received 6 September 2024) and outlined in the Basis for Dissatisfaction document submitted in support of my request for internal review of the Stage 1 decision… [10]
  1. [20]
    Ms Baldwin attached a further nine pages that contained particulars of why the LAD and IRD were considered unsatisfactory, related to the areas,[11] or concerns,[12] that underpinned her grievance and should be set aside. These issues are largely repeated in Ms Baldwin's submissions in support of her appeal.
  2. [21]
    The task of the Commission in this appeal is to decide whether it was fair and reasonable for Ms Farry to confirm the Stage 1 grievance decision as fair and reasonable in the circumstances. While it is not the task of the Commission to undertake the review as though it were a fresh hearing of the IRD or underpinning IEG it is necessary to give some limited consideration to how issues raised with the LAD itself as part of the request for the Stage 2 review have been addressed.
  3. [22]
    In the original grievance Ms Baldwin sought the following outcomes:
  1. 1.
    Written, non-confidential agreement from the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (SCHHS) that:
  1. a.
    The events represented in the attached constitute from Dustylee Williams:
  1. i.
    Unfair and unreasonable conduct, and/or
  1. ii.
    Unfair and unreasonable decision-making, and/or
  1. iii.
    Bullying, and/or
  1. iv.
    Breaches of the Code of Conduct, and/or
  1. v.
    Acts or decisions not compatible with human rights.
  1. 2.
    The proposed abolishment of the SCHHS Public Health Unit HP 5 Advanced Epidemiologist position outlined in the May 2024 Public Health Business Case for Change is consistent with a continuation of this pattern or these patterns of behaviour.
  1. 3.
    Written, non-confidential apology from SCHHS regarding these events.
  1. 4.
    Cessation of unfair and unreasonable conduct and decision-making, bullying, Code of Conduct breaches, and actions incompatible with human rights by Dustylee Williams.[13]
  1. [23]
    The LAD found that Ms Williams' conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonable or unfair behaviour/decision-making, did not constitute workplace bullying or a breach of the Code of Conduct and was not incompatible with human rights. These findings were upheld in the IRD. 
  2. [24]
    Ms Baldwin disputed this and asserted the findings were not fair or reasonable because the decision-maker had not addressed concerns about the 'Stage 1 assessments [being] inadequate to inform the assessment of the pattern or patterns of behaviour'.[14]

Submissions

Submissions of Ms Baldwin

  1. [25]
    In support of her appeal, Ms Baldwin filed submissions on 29 November 2024, in which she contended it was not fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to uphold the Stage 1 decision. Ms Baldwin stated the Stage 2 decision failed to:[15]
  1. …address the submitted Basis for Dissatisfaction… with the Stage 1 Outcome… for the original grievance including critical elements and so was unfair and unreasonable. If the (Basis for Dissatisfaction) were (sic) addressed with fairness prevailing, a different outcome is expected.
  1. [26]
    Ms Baldwin's submissions identified multiple deficiencies she contended rendered the Stage 2 Decision unfair and unreasonable. These deficiencies mirrored those contained within her documented 'Basis for Dissatisfaction' with the LAD. Ms Baldwin submitted her major issues with the LAD were not addressed or were repeated at Stage 2. These deficiencies are in broad summary:
  • There were no interviews with other people involved in or witness to alleged events.
  • There was only consideration of whether alleged behaviour or conduct was intentional or purposeful, which unfairly limited the scope of the review.
  • The statements of the subject officer in response to the grievance were accepted at face value without proper interrogation.
  • Some examples of the alleged conduct were omitted altogether from consideration in the LAD and IRD.
  • Not every aspect of the complaint was assessed properly by the decision-maker/s.
  • Where assessment did occur, there was failure to provide specific outcomes or findings on certain aspects of the complaint.
  • There was inaccurate transcription by the decision-maker of evidence provided by Ms Baldwin.
  • There are findings of fact Ms Baldwin asserted are incorrect.
  • It was not clear that all evidence submitted by Ms Baldwin was considered, or considered adequately by the decision-maker/s.
  1. [27]
    Ms Baldwin contended the whole of her submitted material represented separate allegations that required investigation and findings.

Submissions of the HHS

  1. [28]
    In contrast, the HHS submitted the Stage 2 Decision was fair and reasonable.[16]
  2. [29]
    While the HHS acknowledged Ms Baldwin's concern that not every issue raised in the Stage 1 grievance was specifically addressed in the IRD, they submitted this did not render the decision unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances.[17]
  3. [30]
    The HHS submitted that:[18]

…the internal review and written decision issued by Ms Farry complied with the requirements of Directive 11/20. Both Ms Shaw's initial resolution and Ms Farry's subsequent review were carried out in a manner that ensured procedural fairness and reasonableness. The decision-making process was fair, impartial and aligned with the Respondent's obligation to balance procedural efficiency with fairness, ensuring that the Grievance was addressed appropriately and within the scope of the policies and procedures.

  1. [31]
    The HHS submitted the Stage 2 decision-maker, Ms Farry, found that the LAD was based on 'sufficient reasoning and a comprehensive assessment of the evidence' from both Ms Baldwin and Ms Williams.[19] The LAD was said to demonstrate that fair and reasonable steps were taken to review the four (4) primary allegations, along with the Appellant's 12 examples of alleged conduct by Ms Williams. The HHS contended the purpose of the Stage 1 Grievance process was to determine whether the four (4) primary allegations were substantiated on the balance of probabilities.
  2. [32]
    The HHS submitted the Health Service Workforce Division team engaged with Ms Baldwin throughout the Grievance process to assist Ms Shaw with her initial review. This included conversations by Teams and through email exchange. The HHS contended the purpose of the engagement and insistence on a meeting was to gain a better understanding of the issues and to seek further clarification as necessary.
  3. [33]
    They noted Ms Baldwin raised as a new issue that the meeting organised with HR representatives as part of the Stage 1 process "was to cause me distress/harm and to elicit ill-considered responses." This was denied by the HHS who drew attention to correspondence before and after this meeting to demonstrate the intention was to support, not undermine.
  4. [34]
    The HHS's submissions then provided a "Response to Appellant's Claims" as summarised below.

Whether Ms Williams' behaviour constituted repeated unreasonable behaviour and/or bullying

  1. [35]
    The HHS submitted that the LAD determined, and the IRD confirmed, that Ms Williams' behaviour did not meet the threshold of unfair, unreasonable or bullying behaviour. In the IRD, Ms Farry confirmed the LAD was based on sufficient reasoning and comprehensive assessment of the evidence from Ms Baldwin and Ms Williams so that this conclusion was reasonably open to Ms Shaw. 

Whether procedural fairness was afforded

  1. [36]
    The HHS submitted that procedural fairness did not require that every possible witness be interviewed. Rather what was required was a 'fair process, impartial decision-maker, and a decision based on information available.'[20]
  2. [37]
    The HHS further submitted that Ms Baldwin was afforded procedural fairness in that she had an opportunity to present her case, which included providing the decision maker with information and documents.[21]

Consideration of Ms Williams' actions and human rights

  1. [38]
    Ms Baldwin contended that her human rights were impinged by being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment pursuant to s 17 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('the HR Act'). Ms Baldwin alleged that Ms William's actions constituted 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'.
  2. [39]
    The HHS described Ms Baldwin's claim as unfounded and confirmed the conclusion in the LAD and IRD that the behaviour identified did not rise to that level.
  3. [40]
    The HHS addressed Ms Baldwin's contention that her right to privacy was breached by Ms Williams when she provided information to colleagues about Ms Baldwin's leave, as follows:
  • the information related to Ms Baldwin's professional development leave and so was work related, and not captured by the definition of 'purely personal' information pursuant to s 25 of the HR Act; and
  • the actions of Ms Williams did not amount to unlawful interference or arbitrary interference with Ms Baldwin's right to privacy or reputation.

Addressing the Grievance through alternate dispute resolution strategy

  1. [41]
    The HHS submitted alternate dispute resolution was one of a range of options available to Ms Shaw to resolve the grievance. They asserted this option demonstrated their commitment to fair and collaborative outcomes. They noted Ms Baldwin agreed to participate.

Submissions of Ms Baldwin in reply

  1. [42]
    In her reply, Ms Baldwin asserted Stage 1 was not undertaken consistent with HR Policy E12, as there was no investigation as specifically included in the policy. Had an adequate investigation occurred there would have been no need for the subset of issues raised in the Stage 2 request. Ms Baldwin further stated that adequate reasons were not provided as required by HR Policy E12, also evidenced by her need to lodge a Stage 2 review of the LAD.[22]
  2. [43]
    Ms Baldwin submitted there were significant inadequacies with the Stage 2 internal review. First, that the issues she raised as part of her internal review request were not addressed by Ms Farry. Ms Baldwin restated the broad appeal grounds with particulars in support of those grounds. Ms Baldwin described the HHS response to her 'claims' in their submissions as another attempt 'to address a small number of the issues raised.'[23] 
  3. [44]
    Ms Baldwin's specific responses in reply to the claims of workplace bullying, degrading treatment and breach of privacy will be discussed when considering Appeal Ground 3 below.

Consideration of appeal grounds

  1. [45]
    To decide this appeal, I am required to consider whether the decision appealed against was 'fair and reasonable.' Deputy President Merrell in Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) concluded that making this assessment permitted a review of both the factual merits and legal reasonableness of the decision itself and the process of making that decision.[24] I will consider the grounds for appeal by reference to the deficiencies raised by Ms Baldwin in the appeal notice (replicated in submissions) as summarised above.
  2. [46]
    It is not the role of the Commission in the present matter to consider the 31 allegations afresh and I have no intention of doing so. I refer to specific examples only as they relate to my review and consideration of each ground for the appeal. In doing so I note Ms Baldwin's submissions that the grounds and examples overlap and are not mutually exclusive.
  3. [47]
    It is clear from the material that the LAD contained detailed consideration and responses to many of the issues raised by Ms Baldwin. Ms Shaw, while not finding the conduct substantiated, acknowledged management and communication issues and proposed facilitated discussions as the appropriate local action.  Ms Farry in undertaking her review of the LAD considered the process and findings against the issues raised by Ms Baldwin and determined the outcome reached was reasonable and the process used was fair in the circumstances. Ms Farry did not undertake a fresh hearing of the issues in the grievance itself and was not required to. Ms Farry was required to determine whether the outcomes and proposed action in the LAD were reasonably open to the decision-maker. The reasons outlined in the IRD address those matters. 

Ground 1: Substantial errors of fact demonstrated

Incorrect findings of fact based on incorrect or irrelevant evidence

  1. [48]
    Ms Baldwin asserted that the IRD failed to address the significant errors of fact underpinning the LAD. The errors were caused, in her view, by reliance on incorrect or irrelevant information. As an example of this Ms Baldwin referred to the determination of her claim of differential treatment in relation to the accrual of TOIL by reference to a memo that related to the taking of TOIL. A further example was reliance on a roster excerpt that related to a different category of employee yet was said to be relevant to her circumstances. A third example is that the HHS asserted the complaint about disclosing details of professional development leave was not made out, as the HR Act refers to 'purely personal' information and Ms Baldwin's leave was work related. Ms Baldwin identified that the HR Act makes no reference to personal, let alone 'purely personal' information. I will address the latter issue first.
  2. [49]
    Ms Baldwin contended:
  • Section 25 of the HR Act does not use the term 'personal information', instead underscoring how s 25 enshrines a person's right 'not to have the person's privacy … unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with', and characterises the reasons that employees access leave as being private and not considered as routine personal work information;
  • That the dissemination of the information 'was unlawful and caused stress and avoidance of use of employee benefits requiring information provision';
  • That Queensland Health is 'required by the Privacy Act 2009 to comply with National Privacy Principles', which Ms Baldwin alleges Ms Williams failed to do.
  1. [50]
    Section 25 of the HR Act provides:
  1. 25
    Privacy and reputation
  1. A person has the right—
  1. (a)
    not to have the person's privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and
  1. (b)
    not to have the person’s reputation unlawfully attacked.
  1. [51]
    The scope of the right is outlined in a Right to privacy and reputation factsheet on the Queensland Human Rights Commission webpage:

Scope of the right

The Human Rights Act protects rights to privacy and reputation. The scope of the right to privacy is very broad. It protects personal information and data collection, for example. it extends to a person’s private life more generally…

This right protects the privacy of people in Queensland from 'unlawful’ or arbitrary' interference. Arbitrary interference includes when something is lawful, but also unreasonable, unnecessary or disproportionate.

The protection against an attack on someone's reputation is limited to unlawful attacks. This means attacks that are intentional and based on untrue allegations.

  1. [52]
    While Ms Baldwin correctly identifies the Act does not use the term personal information or purely personal information, it is clear from the provision itself and the factsheet it does seek to protect inter alia personal information from arbitrary or unlawful interference. Assuming that the disclosure to work colleagues was a disclosure of personal information as Ms Baldwin contended, I do not agree this rises to the level of an unlawful or arbitrary interference with Ms Baldwin's individual rights. Moreover, it is well established that the HR Act does not confer directly enforceable rights. Rather, it seeks to set out the human rights sought to be protected and promoted by Parliament, and 'contains operative provisions by which those human rights may be protected and promoted.'[25]
  2. [53]
    Ms Baldwin argued the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) ('IP Act') was also relevant as it provides that reasons a person takes leave is expressly excluded from the definition of "routine personal work information." The Act defines personal information as follows:
  1. 12
    Meaning of personal information
  1. Personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual or an individual who is reasonably identifiable from the information or opinion—
  1. (a)
    whether the information or opinion is true or not; and
  1. (b)
    whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.
  1. [54]
    A Guideline on the Office of the Information Commissioner website provides:
  1. Routine personal work information of public sector employees
  1. …
  1. Disclaimer
  1. 'Routine personal work information' is only relevant in relation to a potential disclosure under
  1. (Queensland Privacy Principle) (QPP 6) or
  1. A formal access application under the RTI Act.
  1. …
  1. What is routine personal work information?
  1. The information being considered in this guideline is limited to routine personal work information – information that is solely and wholly related to the routine day to day work duties and responsibilities of a public sector employee.
  1. This includes information such as:
  • A work email address
  • A work phone number
  • The fact of authorship of a work document, eg where the person's name is listed as one of the writers of a report
  1. …
  1. …
  1. What sort of information is not routine personal work information?
  1. Information that is not wholly related to the routine day to day work activities of a public sector employee is not routine personal work information. The discussions below do not apply to information that is not routine personal work information, even if that non-routine information arose in or out of a work context, for example:
  1. …
  1. reasons why an officer is accessing leave entitlements of any kind or when they have taken, or intend to take, leave…
  1. …
  1. Queensland Privacy Principle 6 – Use or disclosure with consent
  1. An agency can use and disclose personal information for the reason it was collected (the primary purpose). An agency can only use or disclose personal information for a secondary purpose as set out in QPP 6.
  1. …
  1. Under QPP 6.1(a), an agency can use or disclose personal information for a secondary purpose if the individual consents.
  1. Consent
  1. Certain things must be present for agreement to be valid. The individual must have the capacity to agree and their agreement must be:
  • the individual is adequately informed before giving consent
  • the individual gives consent voluntarily
  • the consent is current and specific, and
  • the individual has the capacity to understand and communicate their consent.
  1. …
  1. For the QPPS, consent includes implied consent.
  1. [55]
    The allegation regarding the disclosure of the nature of the professional development being undertaken within the work unit is not a circumstance of disclosure related to QPP 6 or a Right to Information request. It follows therefore that the terms of routine and non-routine personal work information have no relevance to this complaint. In any event, and as highlighted in the LAD, this complaint was resolved when raised by Ms Baldwin directly with Ms Williams in a one-on-one meeting in September 2023. Ms Williams apologised and indicated she thought it a good thing to share.   There is no material before me that suggests this conduct persisted beyond this date.
  2. [56]
    In relation to the former examples of irrelevant evidence being relied upon regarding TOIL, it is clear that even if that were the case, the decision was not solely based on that consideration. It is also a common feature in most public sector awards that TOIL is in lieu of payment for authorised overtime. A point that is correctly relied upon by the decision-maker.
  3. [57]
    Finally on this point I note that there is no requirement that the process undertaken be perfect. The issue is whether or not any deficiency renders the process unfair through practical injustice.[26]

Ground 2: Inadequate verification and Investigation demonstrated

There were no interviews with other people involved in or witness to alleged events.

  1. [58]
    Ms Farry determined that it was reasonable for Ms Shaw not to have interviewed witnesses to the alleged events. She found it was open to Ms Shaw to determine how to address the grievance aligned to the HR Policy E12. Ms Farry and the HHS relied on the policy to contend that interviewing witnesses was not mandated. I agree. There is nothing in the Directive or HR Policy E12 that requires witnesses to be interviewed as part of the process. It is a step that may be utilised from a non-exhaustive list of possible actions.
  2. [59]
    This concern was primarily raised in the context of the incident relating to the abusive behaviour of a work colleague towards Ms Baldwin that was not challenged or stopped by Ms Williams during the meeting.[27] The purported inadequacy is that no persons present at the meeting were asked to confirm that Ms Williams failed to take reasonable management action during the meeting itself. In the LAD Ms Shaw considered the response provided by Ms Williams that she attempted to divert the conversation in the meeting and held discussions with each party following the meeting. She noted Ms Williams' judgement that to have done more in the meeting would have escalated rather than de-escalated the situation.  These decisions on process and outcomes are endorsed in the IRD.
  3. [60]
    While Ms Baldwin may not agree with this determination, I find it was open to the local decision-maker to reach that conclusion and to determine that there was no utility to seek the perspective of other parties in attendance, particularly where many of those people no longer worked for the HHS and the event was some time ago. It was also open to Ms Farry on review, having considered any requirements in the policy to have confirmed that view. 
  4. [61]
    It is not disputed that the interaction occurred, nor that Ms Williams and Ms Baldwin discussed the incident following the meeting. That interaction is dealt with in the context of Appeal Ground 4.  

Appeal Ground 3: Inadequate verification and assessment of evidence to determine findings

There was only consideration of whether alleged behaviour or conduct was intentional or purposeful which unfairly limited the scope of the review

  1. [62]
    Ms Baldwin sought findings against Ms Williams regarding her conduct, behaviour and decision-making. The conduct findings sought were extremely serious so logically required certain thresholds to be met to be substantiated. The same is true in relation to the allegations regarding decisions or conduct incompatible with human rights. Whether or not the numerous examples of the impugned conduct could reasonably amount separately or together to the level of conduct claimed is a relevant consideration in this external review. 
  2. [63]
    Questions such as intent and purpose for given behaviour are directly relevant in this context and not an unfair or unreasonable narrowing of the assessment of the grievance.
  3. [64]
    Bullying is not defined in the PS Act. It is defined in the Directive 11/20 as having the same meaning as that of s 272 of the IR Act, which provides:[28]
  1. (1)
    An employee is bullied in the workplace if—
  1. (a)
    while the employee is at work, an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards—
  1. (i)
    the employee; or
  1. (ii)
    a group of employees of which the employee is a member; and
  1. (b)
    that behaviour creates a risk to the health and safety of the employee.
  1. ...
  1. (2)
    To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.
  1. [65]
    President Davis, when considering the proper construction of s 272, explained that to substantiate an allegation of workplace bullying, the phrase 'repeatedly behaves unreasonably' necessitates that once instances of unreasonable behaviour are identified, there must also exist the likelihood that these will occur repeatedly.[29] As outlined earlier in this Decision, bullying and related terms are defined in HR Policy E12.
  1. Definitions
  1. Workplace harassment/bullying in the workplace
  1. 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 or unsolicited
  • the person considers to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening
  • a reasonable person would consider to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening.
  1. 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.
  1. Repeated behaviour
  1. "Repeated" refers to the persistent nature of the behaviour and can involve a range of behaviours over time.
  1. A single incident of unreasonable behaviour is not considered to be workplace bullying, however may constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service.
  1. Unreasonable behaviour
  1. "Unreasonable" refers to behaviour that a reasonable person, having considered the circumstances, would see as unreasonable, including behaviour that is victimising, humiliating, intimidating or threatening.
  1. [66]
    These provisions relate to conduct, that is persistent, repeated and would be considered by a reasonable person to be offensive, intimidating, humiliating or threatening. It is not the same as poor management or management decisions, actions or outcomes that might negatively impact a person, or a person disagrees with.
  2. [67]
    This is relevant to the findings in the LAD and confirmed in the IRD that the allegations provided to support claimed bullying or unreasonable behaviour are not able to be substantiated as intentional or purposeful. I am satisfied the approach taken by the decision-maker was reasonable.
  3. [68]
    This alleged deficiency relates to the allegations of exclusionary behaviour from joint research or clinical scrums; failure to pass on or provide access to required information; and minimising contributions.
  4. [69]
    Ms Baldwin has further claimed that the Stage 2 response was unreasonable in not finding Ms Williams' failure to 'cease a colleagues' humiliating abuse … and her victim-blaming and exclusionary behaviour, as s 17 breaches or as unreasonable behaviour.[30]
  5. [70]
    The HHS submitted that to establish a breach under s 17, clear evidence of conduct causing severe suffering or humiliation with deliberate intent to harm must exist.[31] Ms Baldwin disputed this and submitted that 'assessment of whether a treatment is degrading' should be 'focussed less on severity of suffering but on humiliation.'[32]
  6. [71]
    Section 17 of the HR Act provides:
  1. A person must not be –
  1. (a)
    Subjected to torture; or
  1. (b)
    Treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; or
  1. (c)
    Subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without the person's full, free and informed consent.
  1. [72]
    The Explanatory Notes to the HR Act clarify the legislature's understanding of the purpose of the relevant sections: [33]
  1. …
  1. Subclause (b) also prohibits degrading treatment, which is focused less on severity of suffering but on humiliation, which is a subjective test.
  1. Whether an act or omission amounts to torture or one or more of the elements of prescribed treatment (cruel, inhuman or degrading) will be a question of degree and turn on the circumstances of the case.
  1. …
  1. [73]
    In Owen-D'arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services,[34] Martin J referred to Garde J's summation in Certain Children (No 1) of what may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment:[35] (citations omitted)
  1. [162]
    Treatment may be considered degrading if it humiliates or debases a person, causes fear,               anguish or a sense of inferiority, or is capable of possibly breaking moral or physical                             resistance or driving a person to act against their will or conscience. Degrading treatment               involves more than the usual element of humiliation ... Similarly, inhuman treatment must               reach a minimum level of severity manifesting in bodily injury or intense physical or                             mental suffering. The assessment of the minimum threshold is relative and depends on all               the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the treatment, its physical or                             mental effects, and the sex, age and state of health of the alleged victim.
  1. [74]
    Having reviewed the material submitted as part of this proceeding I consider Ms Baldwin's claim pursuant to s 17 of the HR Act to be misconceived. This finding confirms the conclusion reached on this matter in the LAD and IRD. 

Ground 4: Lack of demonstrated assessment and provision of findings regarding several aspects in the LAD

  1. [75]
    This ground is related to the earlier consideration of the claimed failure of the decision-maker/s to adequately investigate through witness evidence the incident related to Ms Baldwin being abused and humiliated by a co-worker in a meeting without adequate intervention by Ms Williams. Ms Baldwin contended the LAD further failed to deal at all with the second component of the management response being Ms Williams' "subsequent victim-blaming…including her statement regarding me having offended and triggered him, and that my words had been inflammatory."[36] This is said to have occurred at the follow up discussion between Ms Baldwin and Ms Williams. Ms Baldwin also asserted that the outcome incorrectly stated that she had given evidence that Ms Williams asked a question at the commencement of that follow up meeting –"You’re alright?" – rather than the making a statement – "You’re alright." The purpose of highlighting this issue is presumably because the words as a question tend to favour the response of Ms Williams that her motivation in the follow up meeting was primarily concern for Ms Baldwin as opposed to the view of Ms Baldwin that the statement spoke more to an expectation that she should get over it and that she was to blame, at least in part, for the conduct that unfolded.
  2. [76]
    It is correct that no specific finding was made on the victim-blaming complaint. In the LAD there is consideration of Ms William's statement that Ms Baldwin responded to her colleague’s insult by gesturing with her hands and saying "go on, come on then" – which could be a suggestion that Ms Baldwin was escalating the situation. Based on the information referenced in the LAD, that included a follow up conversation with the colleague, regarding his behaviour Ms Shaw concludes that the claim Ms Williams failed to take reasonable management action could not be substantiated. However, she acknowledges the concern raised regarding immediate intervention would be further considered in relation to any necessary steps to improve our workplace processes and culture.
  3. [77]
    Ms Baldwin cites other examples where she indicated there was no specific finding or consideration.
  4. [78]
    On review Ms Farry noted that not all matters identified by Ms Baldwin in her grievance were directly referenced in the LAD and that had been made clear by Ms Shaw in her decision. Ms Farry determined it was Ms Shaw's role as decision maker to isolate key issues for investigation. The material reviewed and detailed reasons provided by Ms Shaw in the LAD were considered sufficient by Ms Farry to reach her conclusions regarding the alleged conduct.
  5. [79]
    I find that conclusion was reasonably open to Ms Farry. The requirements for the review are set out in the Directive and the HR Policy E12. The requirement was for Ms Farry to consider if the decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This required Ms Farry to consider the decision-making process and the principles of procedural fairness.[37] It was also for the decision-maker to consider if it was reasonable on an objective assessment of the decision in the context of the evidence and relevant circumstances of the case. The test is not whether the decision could have been undertaken in a manner that was fairer or reached a decision that was more reasonable, simply whether it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Processes do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered fair and reasonable.[38]

Conclusion

  1. [80]
    The grievance contained serious allegations that if substantiated could have led to formal disciplinary processes against Ms Williams. The areas or concerns were considered and addressed in a serious manner at the local and internal review stage. Notwithstanding Ms Baldwin's submissions that the process could not be fair or a different outcome would be expected, the process followed was consistent with the Directive and HR Policy E12 and the outcome that the serious misconduct (howsoever described) was not substantiated was reasonably open to the decision-maker/s. The appellant has failed to establish a basis to overturn the review decision of Ms Farry.
  2. [81]
    There remain significant challenges in the working relationship between Ms Baldwin and Ms Williams that pre-dated the formal grievance process. Management issues have been identified through the process that need to be addressed. Ms Baldwin might also reflect on the reasonableness and proportionality of some of her claims.[39] Facilitated discussion has been identified as an appropriate means to attempt to reset the working relationship between the pair. This action remains open to the HHS. To be effective an experienced and independent facilitator/mediator is likely required, in addition to the good faith participation of Ms Williams and Ms Baldwin.
  3. [82]
    I order accordingly.

Order

  1. The decision appealed against is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] LAD decision of 5 September 2024.

[2] IRD decision of 16 October 2024, 5.

[3] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 28 January 2025, 5.

[4] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 131(d).

[5] Ibid s 133(d).

[6] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 564(1); s 564(3)(d).

[7] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 129.

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

[9] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J), 5.

[10] Form 89, filed 6 November 2024, 4.

[11] Employee Grievance from Anne Maree Baldwin, dated 1 July 2024. Attached Table of selection of events relevant to employee grievance with examples of evidence.

[12] Email requesting internal review of employee grievance dated 6 September 2024. Attachment Basis for Dissatisfaction.

[13] I note that in the Reply submissions of the Appellant, filed 28 January 2025, Ms Baldwin seeks to include an outcome in relation to unfair and unreasonable administration decision/s.

[14] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 28 January 2025, 2.

[15] Submissions of the Appellant, filed 29 November 2024, [0].

[16] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 20 December 2025, 5.

[17] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 20 December 2024, [36].

[18] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 20 December 2024, [38].

[19] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 20 December 2024, [26].

[20] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 20 December 2024, [28].

[21] Ibid [29].

[22] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 28 January 2025, 2.

[23] Ibid 4.

[24] Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 16, [23].

[25] Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2) [2020] QSC 293, [197] (Ryan J).

[26] McNeil v State of Queensland (Electoral Commission of Queensland) [2023] QIRC 308, [68] (Dwyer IC).

[27] Potential witnesses also raised in the 'abuse of power' claim.

[28] Directive 11/20, 9.

[29] Greenall v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2021] ICQ 19, [33],[35], [37].

[30] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 28 January 2025, 4-5.

[31] Submissions of the Respondent, filed 20 December 2024, [30].

[32] Submissions in Reply of the Appellant, filed 28 January 2025, 4.

[33] Explanatory Notes, Human Rights Bill 2018 (Qld) 19.

[34] Owen-D'arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273, [177] (Martin J).

[35] Certain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children (2016) 51 VR 473.

[36] Form 89, filed 6 November 2024, 4.

[37] Ms Baldwin seems to argue in her reply submissions that she was not afforded procedural fairness (natural justice) as it related to the performance review discussions and Ms William's handling of alleged complaints made against Ms Baldwin. This seems to incorrectly conflate conduct alleged in an allegation against a subject officer and the process afforded to the Appellant as part of her IEG.

[38] Cunningham v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 161, [31] (Power IC).

[39] For example, concern 5.1, where Ms Baldwin continues to press her claim that she was being directed to use her professional development leave to attend a work meeting even though it was clear there was a typo. She states: "[the decision-maker] inappropriately relies on an assumed lack of intent. Irrespective, the direction was given by the sending of the email, and the email was unreasonable." Submissions of the Appellant, filed 29 November 2024.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Baldwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Baldwin v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 224

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Caddie IC

  • Date:

    25 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
Certain Children v Minister for Families and Children (2016) 51 VR 473
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2016) 51 VR 473
Cite 2 - (2016) 51 VR 473
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
Cunningham v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 161
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QIRC 161
Greenall v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2021] ICQ 19
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] ICQ 19
Cite 2 - [2021] ICQ 19
Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland (No 2)(2020) 5 QR 623; [2020] QSC 293
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QSC 293
Cite 2 - [2020] QSC 293
McNeil v State of Queensland (Electoral Commission of Queensland) [2023] QIRC 308
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 308
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 308
Owen-D'Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services(2021) 9 QR 250; [2021] QSC 273
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QSC 273
Cite 2 - [2021] QSC 273

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.