Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Weaver v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) - [2025] QIRC 81

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

Weaver v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services)[2025] QIRC 81

Weaver v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services)[2025] QIRC 81

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION

Weaver v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2025] QIRC 081

PARTIES:

Weaver, Michelle

(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2024/197

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a disciplinary decision

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2025

DATE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Form 89 – Appeal Notice filed 10 December 2024

Respondent's submissions filed 22 January 2025

Appellant's submissions in reply filed 12 February 2025

HEARD AT:

On the papers

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

ORDER:

  1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I confirm the decision appealed against.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – where the appellant is employed by the respondent as a Custodial Correctional Officer – appeal against a disciplinary finding decision – where the decision appealed against is confirmed

CASES:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 32

LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B(3), 562C(1)

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 91(1), 129, 131, 133

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Michelle Weaver ('the Appellant') is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) ('the Respondent') as a Custodial Correctional Officer.
  1. [2]
    On 19 January 2024, Ms Weaver was issued a show cause notice asking her to respond to three separate allegations (together 'the Allegations'):
  1. a.
    Allegation 1: That on unknown dates, [Ms Weaver] engaged in inappropriate workplace conduct in [her] verbal and physical interactions with CCO X.[1]
  1. b.
    Allegation 2: That on unknown dates, [Ms Weaver] engaged in improper conduct by using inappropriate language toward her colleagues in relation to their certificates and assessments.
  1. c.
    Allegation 3: That on unknown dates, [Ms Weaver] engaged in improper workplace conduct by speaking inappropriately regarding female staff members and CCO X's potential sexual relations with them.
  1. [3]
    Ms Weaver's legal representatives responded to the show cause notice on disciplinary findings on 15 February 2024.
  1. [4]
    On 23 May 2024, the Respondent conducted an additional interview with CCO S, whom the Respondent identified to be a witness during the disciplinary process.
  1. [5]
    On 12 September 2024, Ms Weaver was provided with a transcript of the additional interview and was invited to make further submissions. Ms Weaver's representatives declined to do so.
  2. [6]
    On 19 November 2024, the Respondent made its decision on disciplinary findings, finding that Allegation 1 was partially substantiated, and Allegations 2 and 3 were substantiated.
  1. [7]
    The subject of this appeal is the decision to substantiate Allegations 2 and 3 and to determine that disciplinary grounds exist.

Appeal principles

  1. [8]
    Section 562B(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the appeal is to be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against and that 'the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable'.
  1. [9]
    Findings made in the decision which are reasonably open on the relevant material or evidence before the decision-maker should not be expected to be disturbed on appeal.
  1. [10]
    A public sector appeal is not an opportunity for a fresh hearing, but a review of the decision arrived at by the decision-maker.
  1. [11]
    In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the IR Act provides that the Commission may:
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision appealed against; or
  1. …
  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.

Legislative framework

  1. [12]
    Section 131 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act') lists various classifications of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Pursuant to s 131(1)(c), an appeal may be made against a disciplinary decision.
  1. [13]
    Disciplinary decisions are defined within s 129 of the PS Act, which relevantly states:
  1. 129
    Definitions for part
  1. …
  1. disciplinary decision means a decision under a disciplinary law to discipline–
  1. (a)
    a person (other than by termination of employment), including the action taken in disciplining the person; or
  1. (b)
    a former public sector employee by way of a disciplinary declaration made under section 95, including if the disciplinary action would have been taken was termination of employment
  1. [14]
    Furthermore s 133 of the PS Act details who may appeal a disciplinary decision:
  1. 133
    Who may appeal
  1. …
  1. (c)
    For a disciplinary decision – a public sector employee or former public sector employee aggrieved by the decision if the employee is entitled to appeal under a directive
  1. [15]
    I am satisfied that the decision being appealed is one that may be appealed pursuant to s 131(1)(c) and that Ms Weaver is satisfies the requirements of a public sector employee who may appeal this decision pursuant to s 129 and 133 of the PS Act. The appeal was lodged in time.

Ms Weaver's reasons for appeal

  1. [16]
    Ms Weaver appeals the decision to substantiate Allegations 2 and 3. Ms Weaver does not appeal the finding that Allegation 1 is partially substantiated.

Reasons for appeal in respect of Allegation 2

  1. [17]
    The particulars of Allegation 2 were that:[2]
  1. On unknown dates at [the workplace], [Ms Weaver]:
  1. a.
    said words to the effect 'I don't give a fuck about your Cert III. I don't even know why I'm still doing it. I'm doing it for the pay rise and like, I am not here to help. I hate it' to CCO H when she asked to have a discussion with you; and
  1. b.
    said words to the effect that [she] didn't 'give a fuck about the cert' to CCO M and other unidentified officers when they asked for [her] assistance.
  1. [18]
    However, the decision-maker determined that only Ms Weaver's remarks to the effect that she 'did not give a fuck about your Cert III' were substantiated.
  1. [19]
    Ms Weaver's submissions with respect to Allegation 2 are to the effect that the decision-maker erred when substantiating Allegation 2 due to there being '… no CCTV footage or evidence from an eyewitness who saw the alleged conduct'.[3]
  1. [20]
    Furthermore, the Appellant submits that the decision-maker should have considered '[her] evidence that the interaction did not occur, and that [she] did not recall having any interaction with CCO H, let alone an interaction of the nature alleged'.[4]
  1. [21]
    Ms Weaver also submits that the subject of the alleged incident, CCO H, '… failed to provide any identifying details surrounding the alleged conversation…'.[5] Ms Weaver says that CCO H's evidence is further weakened in circumstances where she gave evidence to the effect that she disclosed to CCO B following the alleged interaction. CCO H stated that CCO B had advised her that she was 'not the first person to raise concerns that [Ms Weaver does] not care about the Cert III and wanting to help people'.[6]
  1. [22]
    When interviewed, CCO B did not recall this conversation, and, in fact, advised that 'the only two staff members who approached her was (sic) CCO M and an unidentified male ex-CCO'.[7] The decision-maker acknowledged that CCO B's evidence contradicted CCO H's evidence but noted that CCO B was not a direct witness to the alleged comment.
  1. [23]
    The Appellant says that the decision-maker's failure to place 'little probative value on CCO B's evidence is entirely inconsistent with their approach in Allegation 3.[8] This is because in Allegation 3, the decision-maker places weight on the evidence of persons who were not direct witnesses to the alleged conduct.[9]
  1. [24]
    Ms Weaver says that the inconsistency in CCO H's evidence raises reasonable doubts about whether she made the comments complained about by CCO H and whether CCO H has mistaken Ms Weaver with another Trainer and Assessor at the workplace.[10]
  1. [25]
    Ms Weaver says that the alleged conversation CCO H says she had with CCO B appears to have been raised to 'bolster the suggestion that [Ms Weaver is] not a fit and proper person to be a trainer and assessor, and that other officers raised concerns about [Ms Weaver]'. Ms Weaver says that the fact that CCO B says that conversation did not occur should have been carefully considered by the decision-maker and that he has erred in failing to place appropriate weight on the inconsistency in CCO H's evidence.[11]
  1. [26]
    Ms Weaver says that CCO H alleged that CCO Y and CCO W had had similar interactions with her, but that it is unfair for the decision-maker to rely on this as there have been no attempts to interview those individuals to confirm whether the allegation is accurate.
  1. [27]
    With regard to CCO B's interview, Ms Weaver says that CCO B recalled that CCO M had stated Ms Weaver had not signed her work but also stated that CCO M's work was not completed to the required standard to be signed.
  1. [28]
    Ms Weaver says that there is no evidence to suggest or support that she stated she 'does not give a fuck about the Certificate III' other than the evidence of 'two CCOs who have clearly formed a dislike to [Ms Weaver] for failing to sign off on their Certificate IIIs…'.[12]
  1. [29]
    Ms Weaver says that she provided the decision-maker with overwhelming evidence that she goes 'above and beyond' as a Trainer and Assessor, including staying back to help recruits and requesting a new book for CCO M. Ms Weaver says that CCO B's account is consistent with this evidence.[13]
  1. [30]
    Ms Weaver says that she has been a Trainer and Assessor since July 2016 and that she has helped hundreds of new recruits to complete their Certificate III. Ms Weaver notes that it is an unpaid role and that if she had the sort of disdain for the role that is being alleged, she would not volunteer her time. Ms Weaver says that she enjoys the role and the responsibility of being a Trainer and Assessor and that she does her best to perform her role diligently and efficiently. Ms Weaver points to various officers who have provided her with favourable references regarding her commitment to the role.[14]
  1. [31]
    Ms Weaver denies ever arbitrarily refusing to help someone with their Certificate III and says that where she has refused to sign for someone, it has been because they didn't reach the standard and she gave them feedback on how to improve.[15]
  1. [32]
    Ms Weaver notes that CCO H and CCO M alleged a range of things which could not be substantiated and were not accepted by the decision-maker.[16]

Reasons for appeal in respect of the substantiation of Allegation 3

  1. [33]
    The particulars of Allegation 3 are that on an unknown date, CCO Weaver said to CCO C words to the effect of, 'what are the sluts like in your group?' and 'we are team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them'.
  1. [34]
    In respect of Allegation 3, Ms Weaver 'vehemently denied making any inappropriate comments to this effect'.[17]
  1. [35]
    Ms Weaver submits that it was unfair for the decision-maker to substantiate Allegation 3 for various reasons, including:[18]
  1. a.
    CCO C's evidence is not reliable enough to substantiate the allegation;
  1. b.
    CCO S does not appear to be the subject of an investigation, despite the allegation suggesting she made the same alleged inappropriate comments;
  1. c.
    CCO H and CCO M's evidence cannot be used to bolster CCO C's evidence as they weren't direct witnesses to the alleged conduct;
  1. d.
    There has been a failure to interview A/Chief Gavin (sic); and
  1. e.
    CCO X's own conduct is not a true reflection of [her] own.
  1. [36]
    Ms Weaver submits that she does not consider CCO C's evidence to be reliable because:[19]
  1. a.
    The alleged conduct wasn't sufficiently particularised;
  1. b.
    CCO C cannot particularise the date [Ms Weaver] allegedly made the inappropriate comments; and
  1. c.
    CCO C alleges that both CCO S and [Ms Weaver] made the inappropriate comments, however, couldn't particularise who said what – looking at the allegation objectively, it would be highly unlikely that [they] both would have said, "what are the sluts like in your group?" and "we're team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them".
  1. d.
    In circumstances where CCO C suggests he can recall the words said, it seems implausible who (sic) would not be able to at least recall whether the comments were made by [Ms Weaver] or CCO S.
  1. [37]
    Ms Weaver submits that the disciplinary finding is unfair in the following circumstances:[20]
  1. a.
    CCO C clearly alleges that both CCO S and [Ms Weaver] made the inappropriate comments;
  1. b.
    The decision-maker at various points in the Show Cause Notice acknowledges that CCO S also made the alleged inappropriate comments;
  1. c.
    Despite this acknowledgement, the fact that CCO S had to be re-interviewed, and the decision-maker stated that he considered the possibility that CCO S withheld evidence in order to 'avoid becoming involved', alludes to the fact that CCO S is not the subject of an investigation or being show caused;
  1. d.
    It would be unfair for the decision-maker to find [Ms Weaver] guilty of 'misconduct' in circumstances where there is inconsistent and differential treatment between CCO S and [Ms Weaver], when the evidence of CCO C does not distinguish whether the alleged comments were made by CCO S or [Ms Weaver].
  1. [38]
    Ms Weaver submits that the decision-maker formed the view that she had made the remarks based on CCO C's generalised evidence that she made the inappropriate comments.
  1. [39]
    Ms Weaver says that it is unfair for the decision-maker to prefer the evidence of CCO C over her evidence on the basis of the two verbal reports of from CCO H and CCO M because:
  1. a.
    CCO H and CCO M's evidence is hearsay;
  1. b.
    CCO H and CCO M were not direct witnesses to the alleged comments;
  1. c.
    The fact that CCO H and CCO M repeated what CCO C told him is immaterial;
  1. d.
    The decision-maker's reasoning to place probative value on their evidence is inconsistent with the approach taken in Allegation 2.
  1. [40]
    Ms Weaver notes that the decision-maker makes reference to the fact that CCO H raised the alleged conduct with A/Chief Supt Gavin, whereby she was advised that 'this has been happening for years'.[21] Ms Weaver says it is unfair to rely on this in circumstances where there have been no attempts to verify the interaction, and where there has been a failure to interview A/Chief Supt Gavin.
  1. [41]
    Ms Weaver says that she considers the conclusions made by the decision-maker to be completely flawed:[22]
  1. a.
    [Ms Weaver] vehemently denied using the word 'slut' in the workplace. The fact that, at interview, CCO X admitted to using the word 'slut' during banter with [Ms Weaver] does not mean that [she] also used the word 'slut'. The decision-maker acknowledges this, however held that his evidence is "indicative of the type of language used in the interactions with me" and considers that [Ms Weaver] "on occasion use(s) similarly inappropriate language in the workplace to the word 'slut'"; and
  1. b.
    The fact that [Ms Weaver] agreed that CCO X would make comments such as 'I want to fuck her in the arse' about his current sexual partners, and describe his sexual experiences, is indicative of [her] own conduct. In particular, the decision-maker held that 'we're team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them' is not out of left field for [Ms Weaver] to have said.
  1. c.
    CCO X's conduct is not indicative of [Ms Weaver's], and the fact that CCO X makes comments of a sexual nature in conversation with [her] does not mean [she] also makes comments of a similar nature. It is flawed reasoning to suggest that simply because comments of an inappropriate nature are made to [Ms Weaver], that [she] also engages in similar behaviour.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [42]
    The Respondent filed submissions in reply in the Industrial Registry on 22 January 2025.
  1. [43]
    From paragraphs [3]–[9] of the Respondent's submissions, the Respondent sets out a brief history of the matter, which I have canvassed from paragraphs [2]–[6] of this decision.
  1. [44]
    The Respondent submits that the decision has complied with the relevant sections of the PS Act and the Discipline Directive 05/23. Further, the decision-maker acted in accordance with the requirements of the Discipline Directive 05/23, applied the correct legal test, and afforded Ms Weaver procedural fairness throughout the disciplinary process.

Allegation 2

  1. [45]
    With regard to Allegation 2, the Respondent submits that the decision was reasonably open to the decision-maker to make on the basis of witness evidence alone and that '[it] is not unusual for witness evidence (rather than documentary or CCTV footage) to be the only available evidence in relation to an allegation'.[23] The Respondent says that the decision-maker reasonably considered that Ms Weaver's lack of recollection did not necessarily indicate that she did not interact with CCO H in the manner alleged, or at all.[24]
  1. [46]
    The Respondent reiterates that the following witness evidence was available to the decision-maker when substantiating Allegation 2:[25]
  1. a)
    CCO H gave direct evidence of the conversation with Ms Weaver in which Ms Weaver said to her, in response to a question about the Cert II "I don't give a fuck about your Cert III. I don't even know why I'm still doing it. I'm doing it for the pay rise and like I'm not here to help. I hate it."
  1. b)
    CCO H also gave evidence of speaking with CCO B about the comment made by Ms Weaver and said CCO B told her that she was not the first person to raise concerns about Ms Weaver.
  1. c)
    CCO B's evidence was that she did not recall a conversation with CCO H, there was an occasion when CCO M told her Ms Weaver refused to assist her with her Cert III. It was open to the decision-maker to take this into account as similar fact evidence.
  1. d)
    CCO M's evidence was that Ms Weaver has said to her directly, words to the effect "I don't give a fuck about your cert, and she doesn't attend training days".[26] CCO M described Ms Weaver as 'unapproachable'.
  1. [47]
    Furthermore, the Respondent submits that it was open to the decision-maker to prefer the evidence of the other CCOs to Ms Weaver, despite CCO B being unable to recall  the conversation with CCO H. The Respondent submits that this was open to the decision-maker on the basis that CCO B's evidence was consistent with CCO M's evidence insofar as '… Ms Weaver had refused to help them with questions they had about their Cert III'.[27]
  1. [48]
    In response to Ms Weaver's submission that it was unfair for the decision-maker to rely on CCO H's evidence to the effect that CCO Y and CCO W had similar interactions with Ms Weaver, despite them not being interviewed, the Respondent cites paragraph [106] of the second show cause notice, stating that the decision-maker did '… not rely on this evidence to substantiate the allegation but merely include(d) it to provide context to CCO H's complaint'.[28]
  2. [49]
    Furthermore, the Respondent submits that the language used by Ms Weaver, particularly, that 'she did not give a fuck' about the Cert III, was 'generally consistent with the witness evidence about the language generally used by Ms Weaver in the workplace'.[29] The Respondent cites Ms Weaver's acceptance in her Response that "other officers may find her language offensive"'.[30] The Respondent submits that the evidence of other employees corroborates that 'Ms Weaver can be "very coarse" in her conduct'.[31]
  1. [50]
    The Respondent says that it was open to the decision-maker to conclude that the available evidence demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate conduct.[32]
  1. [51]
    The Respondent submits that '[it] was also fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to find Ms Weaver's conduct was a breach of the Code of Conduct sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action'.[33] With regard to this submission, the Respondent provides some further background information, stating that:[34]
  1. …
  1. Ms Weaver was a Cert III assessor. As a Cert III assessor she was required to assist her colleagues who were undertaking their Cert III. Each Monday at [the workplace] includes a lockdown so custodial officers can undertake training. The lockdowns also give an opportunity for CCOs undertaking their Cert III to seek assistance from more experienced colleagues, including Cert III assessors. Ms Weaver's responses to requests for assistance from CCO H and CCO M were inappropriate, but particularly given her role as a Cert III assessor.

Allegation 3

  1. [52]
    With regard to Allegation 3, the Respondent submits that the decision-maker found, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Weaver said words to the effect of 'what are the sluts like in your group?' and 'we are team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them'.[35]
  1. [53]
    The Respondent refers to Ms Weaver's submission that CCO C's evidence was unreliable because he did not sufficiently particularise the incident and that they had been led by the investigator.[36] The Respondent says that the decision-maker had addressed '… Ms Weaver's objection to CCO C's evidence at paragraphs [138] and [141] of the Second Show Cause Notice and on careful consideration of CCO C's evidence, reasonably concluded that CCO C had articulated the alleged comment and the context within which it was said with adequate specificity'.[37] For completeness, I will include the content of those paragraphs here:
  1. 138.
    I do not accept your submissions that I should discount CCO C's evidence for the following reasons:
  1. a.
    I accept that the ESG investigator disclosed certain particulars to CCO C to provide context for the interview. I do not consider this to compromise CCO C's evidence so significantly that it should be discounted;
  1. b.
    While CCO C initially agreed that 'it was something along those effects', he continued to state that 'I thought there was the word slut in that as well…Like are there any sluts in your group, we're team X, we want him to, to fuck them, or something'. I consider that CCO C verbalised your alleged statement to an acceptable level of specificity. Moreover, I consider that he was especially forthcoming in providing further details of the alleged conduct. I note that he pointed out to the ESG investigator that the word 'slut' was used and provided further context to his evidence, namely that both you and CCO X had previously been saying words to the effect of 'who's your crew, who's good, who's bad, we're team X'; and
  1. c.
    I do not consider that CCO C saying 'I thought there was the word slut in that as well' suggests that he was not confident in his evidence or was unsure if you used such language. My reading of the interview is that CCO C was politely correcting the ESG interviewer and telling them that he recalled the word 'slut' was used.
  1. …
  1. 141.
    Whilst reading CCO C's evidence, it is abundantly clear that he is not suggesting that only CCO S engaged in the conduct and that you were excluded from the investigator's question. I have reached that view for the following reasons:
  1. a.
    at line 15 of the transcript, it is clear that the investigator tells CCO C that the interview is in relation to your conduct;
  1. b.
    at line 81 of the transcript, the investigator says, 'Regarding Michelle Weaver, I understand you may have witnessed an incident where Michelle, and potentially another officer, were talking about women in your intake…'. I am therefore satisfied that CCO C knew that the questions being asked related to your conduct;
  1. c.
    at paragraph 89 of the transcript, the investigator stated, 'So, specifically the information I have is that Michelle Weaver, sorry, and CCO S, said words to the effect of, yeah, we are team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them'. The investigators use of the word 'and' suggests that it was alleged that you and CCO S engaged in the conduct, not that someone else did and you did not;
  1. d.
    if you keep reading the transcript, it is clear by CCO C's answers that he is giving evidence that you engaged in the conduct along with CCO S. This is clear at paragraph 94, where he said:

CCO C:

Like are there any sluts in your group, we're team CCO X, we want him to fuck them, or something. It was something like, something like that.

  1. e.
    Further, I have had regard to this exchange at paragraphs 102-105.

CCO C:

Pretty self-explanatory, I think. I don't know. They get along and I think it was a, well actually I, yeah, I don't really know, the comment that was made…stupid. I've, I honestly don't know why they asked the question.

CM:

Was there any other context to, to that conversation? Were they talking about other things of a sexual nature or?

CCO C:

No, not it was, it was pretty much exactly the same as the conversation of both of them, like, I'd been here for three days, who's your crew, who's good, who's bad, we're team CCO X [unintelligible – '(ui)'.???

  1. (my underlining and bolding)
  1. [54]
    Furthermore, the Respondent states:[38]

Noting the standard of proof required in a disciplinary process, it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to rely on the evidence of CCO H and CCO M to the extent that it corroborates the nature of the evidence of the direct witness, CCO C, and in doing so, reinforces CCO C's credibility

  1. [55]
    In response to Ms Weaver's submissions that CCO X's inappropriate conduct is not indicative that she is guilty of similar behaviour, the Respondent submits that '[this] is not the conclusion drawn by the decision-maker when substantiating Allegation 3'.[39]
  1. [56]
    Instead, the Respondent submits that the decision-maker had regard for the following when substantiating Allegation 3:[40]
  1. …
  1. Rather the decision-maker took into account Ms Weaver's admissions that CCO X used the word 'slut' in banter with her and that she and CCO X discussed sexual acts with each other while at work to reasonably conclude it was more likely than not that Ms Weaver also used inappropriate language in her workplace interactions with CCO X. This is particularly so where Ms Weaver told the investigator that she engaged in 'banter' with CCO X .
  1. [57]
    The Respondent also states that:[41]

Ms Weaver acknowledged that she engaged in discussions with CCO X in the workplace about sexual topics. Ms Weaver also agreed that her language could be construed as 'offensive'. Given the serious nature of the allegation, it was open to the decision-maker to give weight to the evidence of CCO C and Ms Weaver's own concessions regarding her propensity towards using sexual and inappropriate language at work, and consider Allegation 3 capable of being substantiated on the balance of probabilities.

  1. [58]
    In response to Ms Weaver's submission that the decision-maker's finding that she is guilty of misconduct in respect of Allegation 3 is unfair in circumstances where the same disciplinary finding has not been made toward CCO S, the Respondent submits:[42]
  1. …
  1. Whether or not CCO S was subject to a disciplinary process has no bearing on the findings made by the decision-maker in respect of the allegation against Ms Weaver. It was open to the decision-maker, on a careful consideration of the interview transcript containing CCO C's evidence to be satisfied the allegation related to Ms Weaver's conduct.
  1. [59]
    The Respondent submits that:[43]

Having regard to the evidence available, it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to find that Ms Weaver spoke about female colleagues in a highly inappropriate and offensive manner and was therefore guilty of misconduct.

Appellant's submissions in reply

  1. [60]
    The Appellant filed submissions in reply in the Industrial Registry on 12 February 2025. While Ms Weaver has not organised her reply submissions by the allegation, I have organised my summary of her submissions structured by each allegation being appealed.

Allegation 2

  1. [61]
    The Appellant submits that:[44]

The Respondent have, again, erred in considering CCO H's evidence as 'similar fact evidence' to CCO M. CCO B's evidence directly contradicts CCO H's evidence (as acknowledged in their Show Cause Notice). The fact that CCO M had approached CCO B that [Ms Weaver] 'refused to assist her with her Cert III'. CCO B did not allege that [Ms Weaver] told CCO M that [she] 'didn't give a fuck about her Cert III', but that [she] refused to sign her material. It is also her evidence that she understood why [Ms Weaver] didn't sign her Cert III. In this context, their circumstances are not similar at all.

  1. [62]
    The Appellant refers to paragraph [16] of the Respondent's submissions and submits that 'the decision-maker does not rely on the fact that CCO Y and CCO W had similar interactions with [Ms Weaver] (as per CCO H's evidence) to substantiate the allegation…'[45]
  1. [63]
    Ms Weaver disputes that the Respondent has 'merely include(d) it to provide context to CCO H's complaint', stating that the decision-maker included that comment under the heading 'My Findings' of the Show Cause Notice.[46] Furthermore, the Appellant submits that everything the decision-maker particularises in the Notice forms part of the substantiation and '[it] was not added to 'provide context''.[47]
  1. [64]
    Ms Weaver says that the Respondent has failed to address what she says is an inconsistency in the decision-maker's approach to Allegation 2 and 3, particularly with regard to witnesses and hearsay.

Allegation 3

  1. [65]
    The Appellant submits that by substantiating Allegation 3 on the basis that CCO X's conduct is indicative that Ms Weaver engaged in similar behaviour, the Respondent has contradicted itself. Ms Weaver says that this is contradictory in circumstances where the decision-maker took into account Ms Weaver's remarks about CCO X's use of language and her admission that she engaged in 'banter' with him.[48]
  1. [66]
    With respect to the Respondent's submissions that whether CCO S was subject to a disciplinary process has no bearing on findings made by the decision-maker in respect of the allegation. Ms Weaver says that the Respondent has made admissions to differential treatment and that this is unfair and unreasonable.[49]

Consideration

Preliminary matters

  1. [67]
    It is relevant to note that the initial Ethical Standards Group ('ESG') investigation regarding Ms Weaver's conduct found that none of the six allegations were capable of being substantiated. As the decision-maker rightly states, pursuant to cl 6.7 of the Workplace Investigations Directive 17/20, he is not bound by the investigation report and must consider the matter and come to his own conclusions.
  1. [68]
    There are several references to the content of the investigation report and the interviews undertaken throughout the show cause correspondence and the submissions. The parties had not provided the ESG investigation report or transcripts with their submissions in this appeal and so I requested that these be provided prior to considering the matter. I have read these documents in full.
  1. [69]
    The First Show Cause notice informed Ms Weaver that the six allegations subject of the investigation report had not been substantiated. The decision-maker informed Ms Weaver that he had 'reframed' three allegations and invited her to respond to those allegations. While Ms Weaver's lawyers denied all three allegations in the Show Cause Response, I note that only the findings in relation to Allegations 2 and 3 are subject of this appeal against the disciplinary findings.
  1. [70]
    The decision-maker has found that based on the substantiation of Allegation 2, Ms Weaver has breached a relevant standard of conduct in a way that is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action pursuant to s 91(1)(h) of the PS Act, and of Allegation 3, that Ms Weaver is guilty of misconduct pursuant to s 91(1)(b) of the PS Act. These are serious findings.
  1. [71]
    In considering whether it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to substantiate the allegations and find that grounds for discipline are established pursuant to s 91(1)(h) and s 91(1)(b) of the PS Act, I will have regard to the standard of proof required by the Discipline Directive 05/23. On page 6 of the letter, the decision-maker sets out the explanation of 'balance of probabilities' drawn from Briginshaw,[50] provided in the Discipline Directive 05/23:[51]

Balance of probabilities refers to the civil standard of proof. For an allegation to be substantiated on the balance of probabilities, the evidence must establish that it is more probably than not that the alleged conduct occurred. The strength of evidence necessary to establish an allegation on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the:

  • relevance of the evidence to the allegations
  • seriousness of the allegations
  • inherent likelihood or improbability of a particular thing or event occurring
  • gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding
  1. [72]
    I note from the material that Ms Weaver has an exemplary employment record and has been recognised for her work by the Commissioner. Ms Weaver has also been elected by her peers to be their Workplace Health and Safety Officer in B Block and that she has performed that role voluntarily for four consecutive years. These are matters which may be taken into account in determining appropriate disciplinary action to be taken or whether any disciplinary action decision is fair and reasonable.

Allegation 2

  1. [73]
    By way of background, Ms Weaver is one of the Custodial Corrections Officers who can 'sign off' on Certificate III assessments being undertaken by trainee officers. It appears that this is a voluntary role she undertakes and that she receives no additional remuneration for this role.
  1. [74]
    The allegation is that Ms Weaver used inappropriate language towards her colleagues in relation to the Certificate III and their assessments. Specifically, that she said CCO H words to the effect of 'I don't give a fuck about your Cert III. I don't even know why I'm still doing it. I'm doing it for the pay rise and like, I am not here to help. I hate it' and to CCO M that didn't 'give a fuck about the cert'.
  1. [75]
    The decision-maker ultimately concludes that he is unable to substantiate that Ms Weaver said the words 'I don't even know why I'm still doing it. I'm doing it for the pay rise and like, I'm not here to help. I hate it'.
  1. [76]
    The decision-maker ultimately determines that Ms Weaver said words to the effect of 'I don't give a fuck about your Cert' to CCO H and CCO M.
  1. [77]
    I note Ms Weaver's ground of appeal that there is no CCTV footage or eyewitness evidence of the alleged conduct. This is not unusual in circumstances such as these and I am satisfied that it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to seek that interviews be held with relevant people and to proceed to consider the matter on the basis of the investigation report and transcripts and other material such as the complaints and Ms Weaver's written responses.
  1. [78]
    Ms Weaver denies the allegation, stating that she does not recall who CCO H is and denies having knowledge of any such interaction with her. Ms Weaver's evidence at the investigation interview was that on a Monday, when time was set aside for training and assessment, there could be up to 20 trainees present. Ms Weaver said that she doesn't keep a record of who comes to her to get assessments signed off as it would be 'crazy to keep up with'.
  1. [79]
    While Ms Weaver does not specifically recall interacting with CCO H, in circumstances where CCO H was a trainee officer and was present during the Monday sessions, I find it was open to the decision-maker to determine that it is 'more than likely' that Ms Weaver had 'interacted and conversed with CCO H.[52]
  1. [80]
    Ms Weaver does recall interacting with CCO M and suggests that CCO M has made the allegations in retaliation for Ms Weaver not accepting her Certificate III work. The decision-maker rejects this on the basis that CCO M did not include such an allegation in her written complaint but that it had come out during the investigation interview. I would further note that it appears that Ms Weaver did provide assistance to CCO M by ordering her another book as is evidenced in the email Ms Weaver provided as part of her response.
  1. [81]
    There is no definitive date provided for the interaction CCO H says occurred. During the investigation interview, CCO H could not recall what the question she had asked Ms Weaver was, but thought it 'most likely concerned whether she could use a particular piece of evidence'.[53] CCO H gave evidence that she was 'really taken aback by the attitude…'.[54] CCO H also said that Ms Weaver ultimately did not help her with the Certificate III.
  1. [82]
    In her investigation interview, CCO H stated that she told CCO B about this interaction on a subsequent Monday and says that CCO B had told her that she was not the first to raise concerns that Ms Weaver does not care about the Certificate III.
  1. [83]
    CCO B did not recall that discussion with CCO H and only recalled one person complaining that Ms Weaver had refused to help with a Certificate III, that being CCO M. I have reviewed CCO B's interview transcript. While she recalls only CCO M speaking to her about Ms Weaver and the Certificate III, it does not seem that the alleged conversation with CCO H is raised with her directly.
  1. [84]
    The decision-maker notes that CCO B only identified CCO M as having reported to her that Ms Weaver had made comments to the effect that Ms Weaver doesn't care about the Certificate III. The decision-maker notes the CCO B gave evidence that Ms Weaver had taken quite a few people under her wing and helped with their Certificate III assessments.
  1. [85]
    The decision-maker notes that it is contradictory that CCO B would tell CCO H that she was not the first person to raise concerns that Ms Weaver did not care about the Certificate III and didn't want to help people but also give evidence about Ms Weaver's work ethic. However the decision-maker determines that CCO B was not an eye-witness to the alleged events.
  1. [86]
    The decision-maker also notes the evidence provided by Ms Weaver demonstrating her work ethic with regard to the Certificate III. However, the decision-maker notes that those emails were sent approximately a year prior to the complaints being submitted and says that they may not reflect the circumstances at the time relevant to this allegation.
  1. [87]
    With regard to CCO M's evidence that Ms Weaver had told her she 'didn't give a fuck about the Certificate', CCO B gave evidence that she spoke to CCO M further following a call where CCO M told her that she couldn't get anyone to sign her assessment and that people were 'refusing to sign stuff'. CCO B's evidence was that CCO M told her that Ms Weaver had refused to sign her evidence. However, CCO B said that she reviewed CCO M's evidence and could understand why Ms Weaver had not signed it off.
  1. [88]
    CCO B also said that while she was not present, she could imagine Ms Weaver saying something along the lines of 'this is shit, like I'm not signing this bullshit'. CCO B said that however it was said, it may not have 'come across correctly'.[55]
  1. [89]
    CCO B's evidence was that Ms Weaver is 'very coarse' and that if something had been said by Ms Weaver that it was likely to be on the basis of evidence provided. CCO B's evidence was that Ms Weaver is 'straight up, she'll call it as it is' and that 'she'll say 'this is bullshit, this is full, you're full of shit…'.
  1. [90]
    At her investigation interview, CCO B also said:

Michelle also works well doing that as well. I guess with Michelle, she's got very, and which they all have, very black humour, very straight up, very colloquial, down to earth, you know, she will use cuss words, you know, whereas I don't, I, and that sometimes is found offensive to some people, so…you've got to be aware, you know, who you're….putting with Michelle'.

  1. [91]
    The decision-maker concludes that on the basis of the material available, he prefers the evidence of CCO H that Ms Weaver told her she 'didn't give a fuck about the Cert III' on the basis that CCO M gave evidence of a similar nature.
  1. [92]
    It seems to me that the decision-maker took account of Ms Weaver's evidence about her commitment to the Certificate III along with CCO B's observations of Ms Weaver's work ethic regarding the Certificate III in finding that the first part of CCO H's allegation could not, on balance, be substantiated.
  1. [93]
    With regard to the evidence of witnesses, I note Ms Weaver's submission that CCO Y and CCO W were not interviewed. I also note the Respondent's submission that this information was provided by way of context. Having reviewed the material, I do not find that the decision-maker gave any weight to the potential that CCO Y and CCO W had had the interactions with Ms Weaver alleged by CCO H. I find that there was enough evidence before the decision-maker to determine that on the balance of probabilities, the comments were made by Ms Weaver.
  1. [94]
    With respect to Allegation 2, it was open to the decision-maker to take into account the findings with regard to Allegation 1, that Ms Weaver does, on occasion, use inappropriate language at work. Ms Weaver acknowledged in her show cause response that other officers may find her language offensive.
  1. [95]
    For the reasons given above from [73]–[94], I find it that it was open to the decision-maker to determine that Allegation 2 was substantiated on the balance of probabilities.

Decision on grounds for discipline – Allegation 2

  1. [96]
    CCO B's evidence was supportive of Ms Weaver in that it serves to corroborate her submission that she is committed to the Certificate III. However, CCO B's evidence also corroborates Ms Weaver's acknowledgement that she does, on occasion, use inappropriate language at work.
  1. [97]
    The evidence demonstrates that Ms Weaver takes her assessment role seriously and will not sign assessments if she does not think they meet the required standard. CCO B, whose evidence was supportive of Ms Weaver, was frank about the way in which she had observed Ms Weaver to give feedback or how she believed Ms Weaver would give feedback based on what she knew about her from working with her.
  1. [98]
    It appears that there has never been any previous intervention with Ms Weaver regarding any use of inappropriate language at work. However, I accept it was open to the decision-maker to consider that as a CCO with several years of experience and additional Trainer and Assessor qualifications, there is an expectation that Ms Weaver will role model positive workplace behaviours and assist colleagues with their training.
  1. [99]
    I completely accept Ms Weaver's submission that she values her role as a Trainer and Assessor, however, this allegation is not about her commitment to that role, rather, it relates to her use of inappropriate language in relation to certificates and assessments. It was open to the decision-maker to find that Ms Weaver's conduct in making the alleged remarks to CCO H and CCO M constituted a failure to treat her colleagues with courtesy and respect as required by the Code of Conduct.
  1. [100]
    Given Ms Weaver's seniority and role as a Trainer and Assessor in the circumstances of this substantiated conduct, I find it was open to the decision-maker to determine that Ms Weaver had contravened, without reasonable excuse, a relevant standard of conduct in a way sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action, pursuant to s 91(1)(h) of the PS Act.

Allegation 3

  1. [101]
    Allegation 3 is serious and has given rise to a finding of misconduct. The decision-maker addresses this allegation over several pages in the Disciplinary Findings letter.[56]
  1. [102]
    The particulars of the Allegation are that Ms Weaver asked CCO C 'what are the sluts like in your group?' and said 'we are on team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them'.
  1. [103]
    CCO C has then apparently reported these remarks to colleagues, including CCO H and CCO M.
  1. [104]
    I note that Ms Weaver denies making the comments as alleged.
  1. [105]
    The decision-maker addresses several of Ms Weaver's submissions including that the ESG investigator disclosed particulars prior to CCO C providing his account; that CCO C did not confirm the precise phrase and that it was possible the words were said by another officer who was present.
  1. [106]
    I find it was open to the decision-maker to find that the particulars disclosed to CCO C were for the purpose of providing context for the interview and that CCO C did not confirm the exact phrase provided by the investigator but had provided further details beyond the particulars disclosed, specifically that he recalled the use of the word 'slut' and that he then stated what he recalled to have been said.
  1. [107]
    I further find that the decision-maker appropriately noted Ms Weaver's submission that the words may have been said by another officer who was present and directed ESG to interview the other CCO who was present. I am satisfied that the transcript of that interview was provided to Ms Weaver and that she did not provide any further response.
  1. [108]
    In this appeal, Ms Weaver submits that if no disciplinary action has been taken against the other CCO who was present that there has been inconsistent treatment and unfairness. I am unaware of what action, if any, has been taken regarding the other officer/s present during the alleged events. The only matter before me, is whether it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to substantiate the allegation and make a finding regarding disciplinary grounds against Ms Weaver.
  1. [109]
    On the basis of the information set out at paragraph [141] on page 21 of the Disciplinary Findings letter, I also accept that it was open to the decision-maker to reject any submission that CCO C's evidence suggested that it was only another officer who engaged in the conduct and not Ms Weaver.
  2. [110]
    The decision-maker addresses the other officer's evidence and notes that she did not recall the interaction. The decision-maker considers some possible reasons that the other officer does not recall the conversation, including the passage of time, that the investigator's question was general in nature or that the officer withheld evidence in order to avoid becoming involved. These are all reasonable conclusions for the decision-maker to draw on the basis of the transcript of the interview and the circumstances surrounding the matter. Whether a disciplinary process has been commenced against the other officer is not a matter for this appeal.
  1. [111]
    This then left the decision-maker with Ms Weaver's denial, the evidence of CCO C as to the words said to him, and CCO H who recalls CCO C telling her about what was said to him.
  1. [112]
    With regard to Ms Weaver's denial, the decision-maker notes that Ms Weaver denies saying the word 'slut' at all and says that CCO X admitting to using the word 'slut' with regard to Allegation 1 does not imply that she also uses the word 'slut'. The decision-maker accepts this but notes that Ms Weaver has admitted to using similarly inappropriate language in the workplace and also notes that the word 'slut' is indicative of the types of language used in interactions with Ms Weaver in the workplace.[57] These were reasonable conclusions for the decision-maker to draw from the available evidence.
  1. [113]
    I further note that during the interview, Ms Weaver admitted to discussing sexual acts with CCO X in the workplace. I have reviewed the transcript, and I note that Ms Weaver categorically denies making the alleged remarks to CCO C. However, she agrees that gossip about 'who is potentially having relations with who' is a 'regular thing' in the workplace and says that she has been in such conversations and has heard gossip about CCO X's sexual relations with other employees.[58]
  1. [114]
    During her interview, Ms Weaver said that she had discussed CCO X's relationships with CCO X himself. Ms Weaver said this would be when he would come to her to 'vent'. Ms Weaver said that she and CCO X were 'friends on the outside'.[59] Ms Weaver said she did not know if CCO X was single but said that she would have discussed multiple relationships with him.[60]
  1. [115]
    At a supplementary interview, Ms Weaver was asked further questions about her interactions with CCO X. Ms Weaver was asked about information the investigators had been provided with that she and CCO X would engage in conversations where he would 'call you a slut or that he wanted to quote fuck you in the arse and you would respond by calling him a dog rooter or fuck face'. Ms Weaver initially said that she did not recall these things being said.[61] Ms Weaver agreed that she had had conversations about sexual acts in the workplace in relation to CCO X's previous sexual partners. Ms Weaver agreed that she had heard CCO X talk about wanting to 'fuck this person in the arse' but said that this was in relation to people he was in a relationship with.
  1. [116]
    Later in the interview, Ms Weaver said that while she really didn't recall calling CCO X a 'dog rooter' or 'fuck face', she admitted that she 'could have'. Ms Weaver agreed that she would consider this 'banter'.
  1. [117]
    Ms Weaver had recalled CCO X saying words to the effect of 'fuck in the arse'. CCO H's evidence was that she had heard CCO X say to Ms Weaver words to the effect of 'I'm going to fuck you in the arse so hard tonight'. The decision-maker notes that Ms Weaver denies this was said to her, but it seems to me that on the basis of the available interview material, it was open to the decision-maker to determine that this type of conversation had taken place in the workplace and that it was probable it had occurred as reported by Ms H.
  1. [118]
    The decision-maker draws together the lengthy consideration of Allegation 3 in paragraph [155] of the Disciplinary Findings letter:

I consider it relevant that at interview, you admitted to discussing sexual acts with CCO X while at work. You also make 'reasonable concessions to using inappropriate language' whilst at work. You agreed that CCO X would make comments such as 'I want to fuck her in the arse' about his current sexual partners and describe his sexual experiences. CCO H gave evidence that she overheard CCO X say to you words to the effect of 'I'm going to fuck you in the arse so hard tonight' although I note that you deny this. I consider that words to the effect of 'we're team CCO X, we want him to fuck the lot of them' are not out of left field for you to have said, having regard to the sexual and inappropriate workplace conversations described above.

  1. [119]
    The decision-maker considers that CCO C 'felt compelled to recount the alleged conversation' and that this suggests 'that it left a lasting impression'. The decision-maker also says that CCO C's memory of what was said was likely reinforced through the act of recounting the conversation to CCO H. While Ms Weaver submits that the decision-maker should be precluded from relying on CCO H and CCO M's reports on the basis that they are hearsay, the decision-maker finds that the two verbal reports 'bolster CCO C's credibility'.
  1. [120]
    The decision-maker deals with CCO M's inability to recall any context or information about this allegation and accepts that her recollection may have been impacted by the passage of time. The decision-maker describes CCO M as forthcoming in the interview when she said she did not recall what was said.
  1. [121]
    However, even without CCO M's evidence, the decision-maker says that the consistency between the evidence given by CCO H and CCO C supports a finding that Ms Weaver did say the words alleged. I note that the decision-maker refers to CCO H's evidence that CCO C was rostered to work in 'residential' and CCO C's recollection that the alleged conversation occurred 'in res'. I find it was open to the decision-maker to rely on the interviews of CCO C and CCO H and the written complaints of CCO H and CCO M to accept their evidence of what was said.
  1. [122]
    Based on all of the material available to me, I find it was open to the decision-maker to determine that on the balance of probabilities, Ms Weaver made the remarks alleged.

Grounds for discipline – Allegation 3

  1. [123]
    Following the finding that Allegation 3 was substantiated, the decision-maker went on to state that the conduct 'breached various clauses of the Code of Conduct and affiliated documents such as the DJAG Workplace Policy and the QCS Discrimination and Harassment Policy on the basis that Ms Weaver had failed to:[62]
  1. a.
    treat your colleagues with courtesy and respect as required.
  1. b.
    adhere to the policies and organisational documents of QCS; and
  1. c.
    behave responsibly and avoid offensive behaviour in the workplace.
  1. [124]
    In determining that pursuant to s 91(1)(b) of the PS Act, Ms Weaver is guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate and improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of s 91(5)(a), the decision-maker said:
  1. 161.
    Your comments are improper. The word 'slut' is highly derogatory and demeaning as it references purported sexual activities, with a negative connotation. It is highly inappropriate and offensive to use that word in reference to colleagues, in a conversation with other colleagues in the workplace. Commenting to colleagues, in the workplace, that you want a male officer to sleep with colleagues who are new to the workplace is highly inappropriate and offensive. It is also demeaning to the persons about whom it is said. It presents a risk to work health and safety, particularly of those female officers to whom it related if it were made known to them. Making the comment in the workplace also tends to undermine a culture of respect and dignity in the workplace, which is an expectation for a public service entity and its staff.
  1. 162.
    In light of these considerations, I consider that these comments were a significant departure from the accepted standard of behaviour which is clearly set out in the Code of Conduct, Workplace Policy and QCS Discrimination and Harassment Policy. In light of your length of experience as a CCO, your choice to utter these comments in the workplace was a deliberate choice to breach the standards of behaviour that apply to you.
  1. [125]
    In Coleman,[63] Deputy President Merrell considered the definition of misconduct in the PS Act, stating:[64]

In my view the definition of 'misconduct' contained in s 187(4)(a) contemplates a deliberate departure from accepted standards, serious negligence to the point of indifference, or an abuse of the privilege and confidence enjoyed by a public service employee.

  1. [126]
    I have considered Ms Weaver's description of the interactions between herself and CCO X as 'banter'. I understand that in particular contexts, 'banter' between consenting work colleagues can make the workplace more enjoyable and promote camaraderie. In this case, 'banter' of the nature found by the decision-maker to have occurred between Ms Weaver and CCO X, was of a sexual nature and involved words which could clearly be considered inappropriate in the workplace and offensive to colleagues not involved in the 'banter' but overhearing it or those the subject of it. The comments found to have been made to a newcomer to the workplace, CCO C, about his female colleagues, is not, in my view, 'banter'.
  1. [127]
    The word 'slut' can carry different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. In certain contexts, 'slut' may be used as a term of affection, or by way of greeting and may form the basis of 'banter' between friends. However, the generally understood meaning of 'slut' is as a derogatory term with a negative connotation, specifically relating to the sexual activities of a person.
  1. [128]
    Certainly, in the context in which the term was found to be used here, describing new work colleagues and suggesting a desire to have a colleague engage in sexual relations with newcomers to the workplace, the term is highly inappropriate.
  1. [129]
    I accept it was open to the decision-maker to find that the comments were a significant departure from accepted conduct and that Ms Weaver, as an experienced CCO had deliberately departed from that accepted conduct when she made the remarks to CCO C. CCO C was not a close colleague with whom Ms Weaver enjoyed 'banter' and it was clearly a possibility that CCO C would communicate the remarks to the women with whom he worked. The comments also had the capacity to affect or offend CCO C and/or undermine his understanding of appropriate behaviour and workplace culture.
  1. [130]
    The finding that Allegation 3 is substantiated and that the conduct is misconduct pursuant to s 91(1)(b) of the PS Act, was open to the decision-maker and is confirmed.
  1. [131]
    While I note that the decision-maker invites Ms Weaver to respond to the disciplinary action proposed to be taken against her, this is not a matter I am required to address in this appeal.

Order

  1. [132]
    For the reasons I have given from paragraphs [67]–[131] of these reasons for decision, I make the following order:
  1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I confirm the decision appealed against.

Footnotes

[1] References to Ms Weaver's colleagues and workplace have been anonymised throughout these reasons for decision.

[2] Respondent’s submissions dated 22 January 2024, show cause notice dated 16 January 2024, 5.

[3] Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 10 December 2024, sch 1 [10].

[4] Ibid, sch 1 [11].

[5] Ibid, sch 1 [14].

[6] Ibid, sch 1 [15].

[7] Ibid, sch 1 [16].

[8] Ibid, sch 1 [18].

[9] Ibid, sch 1 [18].

[10] Ibid [20].

[11] Ibid [21].

[12] Ibid [28].

[13] Ibid [29].

[14] Ibid [30].

[15] Ibid [32].

[16] Ibid [34].

[17] Ibid, sch 1 [36].

[18] Ibid, sch 1 [37].

[19] Ibid, sch 1 [38].

[20] Ibid, sch 1 [40].

[21] Ibid, sch 1 [43].

[22] Ibid, sch 1 [44].

[23] Respondent's submissions (n 2), [13].

[24] Ibid [12].

[25] Ibid [14].

[26] This is the quote attributed in the Respondent's submissions, however, I have taken this to mean that CCO M separately stated that Ms Weaver does not attend training days.

[27] Respondent's submissions (n 2) [15].

[28] Ibid, [16].

[29] Ibid [17].

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid [18].

[33] Ibid [20].

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid [21].

[36] Ibid [22].

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid [23].

[39] Ibid [24].

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid [25].

[42] Ibid [26].

[43] Ibid [27].

[44] Appellant's submissions in reply filed in the Industrial Registry on 12 February 2025, [3].

[45] Ibid [4].

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid [6].

[49] Ibid [7].

[50] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 ('Briginshaw')

[51] Appeal Notice (n 3), decision-maker's letter dated 18 November 2024, 6.

[52] Respondent's submissions (n 2), [94].

[53] Ibid, Decision on Disciplinary Findings, 13.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid, Attachment C, 17.

[56] Ibid, 18–24.

[57] Ibid [152].

[58] Investigation Report, Attachment 17 Transcript, 187.

[59] Appeal Notice (n 3), [68].

[60] Investigation Report (n 57).

[61] Ibid, Attachment 21, 223.

[62] Decision letter (n 50), [160].

[63] Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 32 ('Coleman').

[64] Ibid [62]

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Weaver v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Weaver v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services)

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 81

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    21 Mar 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
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 32
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 32
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 32

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.