Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Satterly v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QIRC 97

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

Satterly v Brisbane City Council[2025] QIRC 97

Satterly v Brisbane City Council[2025] QIRC 97

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 097

PARTIES: 

Satterly, Matthew

(Applicant)

v

Brisbane City Council

(Respondent)

CASE NO.:

TD/2023/104

PROCEEDING:

Application for reinstatement

HEARING DATE:

1 July 2024

DELIVERED ON:

1 April 2025

DATES OF FINAL SUBMISSIONS:

Applicant's written submissions filed on 5 August 2024

Respondent's written submissions filed on 28 August 2024

Applicant's written submissions in reply filed on 18 September 2024

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Merrell DP

Brisbane

ORDER:

Pursuant to s 319(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Applicant's application for reinstatement, filed on 19 September 2023, is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW –  QUEENSLAND –  OTHER MATTERS –  APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT – where Applicant employed by the Respondent as a Bus Operator – allegations made by the Respondent that the Applicant engaged in six acts of misconduct during the course of his employment – disciplinary process  commenced by the Respondent in respect of the six allegations of misconduct – six allegations of misconduct found to be substantiated by the Respondent – Applicant given an opportunity to respond as to whether the allegations of misconduct were made out and whether, in light of the Applicant's misconduct as substantiated by the Respondent, the Applicant should be dismissed – where Applicant subsequently dismissed – where Applicant applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for reinstatement alleging his dismissal was unfair – whether the Applicant's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – whether the Applicant's impugned conduct was a manifestation of a psychiatric injury he suffered – on the evidence the Applicant did engage in the six acts of misconduct as alleged against him by the Respondent – on the evidence the Applicant's impugned conduct was not attributable to any psychiatric injury suffered by the  Applicant – the Applicant was given the reasons for his dismissal by the Respondent – the Applicant was dismissed because of his misconduct and he was given an opportunity to respond to the Respondent about the claims made about his conduct prior to his dismissal – the Applicant's dismissal was proportionate to certain of the substantiated acts of misconduct in which the Applicant engaged – the Applicant's dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – the Applicant's application for reinstatement dismissed

LEGISLATION:

Brisbane City Council Certified Agreement 2018 (EBA9), sch 10

City of Brisbane Act 2010, s 4, s 15 and s194

City of Brisbane Regulation 2012, s 256, s 257 and s 258.

Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 316, s 319, and             s 320

Invasion of Privacy Act 1971, s 43 and s 45

Transport Operations (Road Use Management–Road Rules) Regulation 2009, s 264

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 232B

CASES:

Black v Gladstone Regional Council[2024] QIRC 285

Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410

Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; (2000) 75 ALJR 312

Drury v BHP Refractories Pty Ltd[1995] IRCA 293; (1995) 62 IR 467

Gold Coast District Health Service v Walker [2001] ICQ 62; (2001) 168 QGIG 258

Mount v Dover Castle Metals Pty Ltd[2025] FCA 101

Shorten v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd[1996] AIRC 2023; (1996) 70 IR 360

APPEARANCES:

Mr. T. McAuley, agent for the Applicant

Ms M. Brooks of Counsel instructed by Ms M. Lalovic and Ms A. Lafferty of Wotton + Kearney for the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Matthew Satterly was employed by the Brisbane City Council ('the Council') as a Bus Operator and worked from the Council's Garden City depot. Mr Satterly commenced employment with the Council on 22 August 2006 and, effective 15 September 2023, he was dismissed by the Council.
  1. [2]
    The reasons for Mr Satterly's dismissal are contained in a letter to him, dated 15 September 2023, and sent to him by email on the same day,  from Ms Anne Lenz, Divisional Manager, Organisational Services.[1] The reasons given by Ms Lenz were that Mr Satterly had engaged in six substantiated acts of misconduct. The substantiated acts of misconduct concerned his non-compliance with Council directions when operating a bus on 9 February 2023, his conduct towards other Council employees on 9 and 13 February 2023 and the content of written correspondence he sent to a senior Council employee on 23 March 2023 and on 10 April 2023.
  1. [3]
    By application filed on 19 September 2023, Mr Satterly applied for reinstatement. The order sought by Mr Satterly is that he be reinstated to his position as a Bus Operator with the Council.
  1. [4]
    Mr Satterly contends that his dismissal was unfair because:
  • his dismissal was disproportionate to his conduct;[2]
  • Ms Lenz used his historical mental illness '…testimony' to dismiss him;[3]and
  • his conduct was specifically attributable to his mental illness injury and he was discriminated against because of his mental illness.[4]
  1. [5]
    The Council contends that:
  • Mr Satterly's substantiated conduct was very serious and put other people at risk of injury; and
  • Mr Satterly's behaviour, irrespective of any finding about its cause, was significant and of a nature that was unacceptable in the workplace.[5]
  1. [6]
    The primary issue for my determination is whether Mr Satterly's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of s 316 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016('the IR Act'). In respect of determining that primary issue, the questions I need to determine, having regard to the parties' claims, are:
  • did Mr Satterly engage in the conduct the subject of the six acts of misconduct, as alleged by the Council, for which he was dismissed? and, if so
  • did Mr Satterly have a psychiatric injury, the manifestation of which was his impugned conduct the subject of the six acts of alleged misconduct?
  • what actuated Ms Lenz to make the decision to dismiss Mr Satterly?
  • was Mr Satterly's dismissal proportionate to the misconduct of which he was found to have engaged? and
  • was Mr Satterly's dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable having regard to the matters referred to in s 320 of the IR Act.
  1. [7]
    For the reasons that follow, I find that:
  • Mr Satterly did engage in the conduct the subject of the six acts of misconduct as alleged by the Council for which he was dismissed;
  • Mr Satterly's impugned conduct was not a manifestation of any psychiatric injury or illness from which he suffered;
  • Ms Lenz made the decision to dismiss Mr Satterly because of his substantiated misconduct;
  • Mr Satterly's dismissal was proportionate to certain of his misconduct; and
  • having regard to the matters referred to in s 320 of theIR Act, his dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [8]
    The consequence is that, pursuant to s 319(b) of the IR Act, Mr Satterly's application for reinstatement will be dismissed.

The six acts of misconduct alleged by the Council

  1. [9]
    At a general level, the six acts of misconduct alleged by the Council against Mr Satterly were:
  • on 9 February 2023 at 4.55 pm, Mr Satterly failed to contact the Council's Network Coordination Centre ('NCC') after a bus he was operating was involved in an on-road incident[6]('the first allegation of misconduct');
  • on 9 February 2023 at 4.56 pm, Mr Satterly failed to wear a seat belt when operating a Council bus[7]('the second allegation of misconduct');
  • on 9 February 2023, Mr Satterly failed to follow his 'run print' when the bus he was operating departed early at four bus stops[8]('the third allegation of misconduct');
  • on 9 February 2023, at 6.48 pm, Mr Satterly displayed inappropriate behaviour towards a colleague when she approached him and suggested to Mr Satterly that he was holding up a bus stop at Browns Plains[9]('the fourth allegation of misconduct');
  • on 13 February 2023:
  1. –
    at approximately 6.55 pm, Mr Satterly displayed inappropriate behaviour, when talking about his work colleague, in a rude and disrespectful way, to NCC; and
  1. –
    at approximately 3.40 pm and 9.04 pm, Mr Satterly displayed inappropriate behaviour towards a work colleague[10]('the fifth allegation of misconduct'); and
  • on 23 March 2023, Mr Satterly emailed a letter to Ms Samantha Abeydeera, Divisional Manager, Transport for Brisbane ('Ms Abeydeera'), which contained obscene, grossly offensive, disrespectful, threatening and inappropriate statements concerning current and previous Council officers, and that some of the same allegations were repeated in a subsequent letter from Mr Satterly dated 10 April 2023[11]('the sixth allegation of misconduct' or collectively 'the six allegations of misconduct').

The evidence led by the parties

Mr Satterly

  1. [10]
    Mr Satterly gave evidence on his own behalf and was cross-examined. Mr Satterly also led evidence from Mr John Meikle[12]and Ms Ishmaele Reihana,[13]both former Bus Operators with the Council. Mr Meikle and Ms Reihana were not cross-examined.
  1. [11]
    Mr Satterly also relied upon a number of documents which were admitted into evidence without objection from the Council.[14]These included a report dated 11 March 2024 from Dr Martin Nothling, Specialist Medical Practitioner in Psychiatry to Mr Andrew Murrell of the Council's workers' compensation self-insurer, City WorkCover ('Dr Nothling's report').[15]Dr Nothling's report concerned an application for workers' compensation made by Mr Satterly dated 12 March 2023 by which he claimed he suffered a work-related psychiatric injury at 7.00 pm on 9 February 2023 at the '…Browns Plains Terminus.'[16]
  1. [12]
    Mr Satterly also tendered, without objection, a video, apparently taken by him, of him attempting, on a date unknown, to self-harm by choking himself with an electrical cord.[17]

The Council

  1. [13]
    The Council led evidence from Ms Johanna Baird, Employee Relations Specialist with the Council, who was not cross-examined, and also from Ms Lenz, who was cross-examined.
  1. [14]
    The Council also tendered:
  • CCTV footage of the bus Mr Satterly was operating on 9 February 2023, which relevantly consisted of:
  1. –
    a visual and audio recording of a collision between the bus Mr Satterly was operating with a parked white utility vehicle in Queen Street, Brisbane City at approximately 4.55 pm ('the collision CCTV');[18]and
  1. –
    from about 6.40 pm, a visual and audio recording of:
  • Mr Satterly parking the bus he was operating at the Browns Plains bus station;
  • a subsequent face to face interaction between a female Bus Operator employed by the Council ('the female Bus Operator') and Mr Satterly at the Browns Plains bus station; and
  • an NCC Operator and Mr Satterly speaking to each other when Mr Satterly was in the bus he was operating when parked at the Browns Plains bus station ('the Browns Plains CCTV');[19]  
  • an audio recording of the female Bus Operator speaking to an NCC Operator on 9 February 2023 about her interaction with Mr Satterly at the Browns Plains bus station ('the female Bus Operator recording');[20]
  • an audio recording of an NCC Operator and Mr Satterly speaking with each other on 9 February 2023 ('the NCC recording');[21]
  • an audio recording of Mr Satterly speaking to the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023 in the lunch room at the Council's Garden City depot ('the first lunch room recording');[22]and
  • an audio recording of Mr Satterly, on 13 February 2023, further speaking to the female Bus Operator, and later to a male worker employed by the Council, in the lunch room at the Council's Garden City depot ('the second lunch room recording').[23]

The Industrial Relations Act 2016and the applicable legal principles

  1. [15]
    Section 316 of the IR Act provides that a dismissal is unfair if it is harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [16]
    A dismissal may be unjust in circumstances where the employee was not guilty of the misconduct upon which the employer acted.  Similarly, a dismissal may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer.  Alternatively, a dismissal may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted.[24]In many cases, the concepts of harshness, unjustness or unreasonableness will overlap.[25]
  1. [17]
    Section 320 of the IR Act relevantly provides that in deciding whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must consider:
  • whether the employee was notified of the reason for dismissal;
  • whether the dismissal related to:
  1. –
    the operational requirements of the employer's undertaking, establishment or service; or
  1. –
    the employee's conduct, capacity or performance; and
  • if the dismissal relates to the employee's conduct, capacity or performance:
  1. –
    whether the employee had been warned about the conduct, capacity or performance; or
  1. –
    whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to the claim about the conduct, capacity or performance; and
  • any other matters the Commission considers relevant.
  1. [18]
    It has long been the case that, in determining whether or not the dismissal of an employee was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, a relevant consideration is whether the dismissal of the employee was proportionate to the reason relied upon for the dismissal.[26]
  1. [19]
    In an unfair dismissal case, an applicant carries the onus of proving that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.[27]

Undisputed factual background

The Transport for Brisbane Bus Operator Handbook

  1. [20]
    Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-5' is the Transport for Brisbane Bus Operator Handbook ('the

Handbook'). The Handbook relevantly provides:

All bus operators are issued with a Bus Operator Handbook. Adherence to the Bus Operator Handbookinstructions is a condition of your employment.

NOTE: This handbook does not override any legislation, award or enterprise bargaining agreement.[28]

  1. [21]
    Relevantly to the first allegation, the Handbook dealt with the on road support provided from the NCC. The Handbook provides:

The Network Coordination Centre (NCC) is responsible for ensuring that all incidents and issues impacting the network are dealt with effectively and that all bus services are maintained to the highest possible level of efficiency.

When a bus proceeds out of the depot into service, it immediately comes under the direction of NCC until it returns to the depot at the end of a shift. NCC is connected by radio to all mobile vehicles and other vehicles within Council's fleet. NCC has direct lines to all depots, garages and emergency services.

When you call NCC, you are sending a message requesting them to call you back. Several factors impact on NCC's ability to respond, including the priority of your request and other work demands in NCC at the time such as priority calls or events.

When contact is established with NCC  via  the radio system, calls are recorded to ensure a high standard of customer service and for training and coaching needs.

You must report any issues or incidents which are affecting, or are likely to affect, our services to NCC via the bus radio (e.g. accidents, traffic hold-ups, fires, burst water mains, local flooding).[29]

  1. [22]
    The Handbook also specified what a Bus Operator had to do in the event of an accident or incident. Relevantly, the Handbook provides:

REPORTING ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS

In the event of an accident or incident, you must immediately do the following:

  • Without obstructing traffic more than is necessary, stop the bus as soon as possible. Apply the park break and select neutral. Turn on the hazard lights before leaving your seat.
  • Report all incidents to NCC and press the CCTV button.

…

Where damage is caused to an unattended vehicle, securely attach a written note providing your name, registration number, list Brisbane City Council as the owner and the bus number. You must securely attach the written note under the windscreen wiper blade. You can use the pre-prepared form available in the appendix of this handbook.[30]

  1. [23]
    Relevantly to the second allegation, the Handbook provides:

BUS OPERATORS' LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES

In your role, you must comply with current State and Federal legislation which includes, but is not limited to:

…

  • Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation (Qld)

…

If you require access to relevant legislation, see your team leader.

Some of the legislative requirements prescribed in the above legislation and standards require you to:

  • wear a seatbelt correctly if the bus is moving, or is stationary, but not parked.[31]
  1. [24]
    Section 264 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management–Road Rules) Regulation 2009, as at 9 February 2023, relevantly provided:

264 Wearing of seatbelts by drivers

  1.  The driver of a motor vehicle that is moving, or is stationary but not parked, must wear an approved seatbelt that is properly adjusted and fastened.
  1. [25]
    Relevantly to the third allegation, the Handbook dealt with certain Operational Practices, including what are known as 'Run Prints'.  In that regard, the Handbook relevantly provides:

OPERATIONAL PRACTICES

RUN PRINTS

A run print details the work content of your shift, the time your bus is required to leave or arrive at various locations, pass certain stops and 'give-over' to, or 'take-over' from another bus operator. You are required to adhere to the scheduled departure times and timing points on your run print. Run prints must be followed in their entirety, including all timing points, notes and/or diversions if applicable. Meal breaks are to be taken at the location detailed on your run print. Meals cannot be taken at any other location without the express permission of NCC.

…

EARLY RUNNING

Early running is not acceptable – you must adhere to the scheduled departure time and timing points on your run print.

If you arrive at your next timing point before the scheduled departure time, hold up there (excluding Busways) making sure you are not obstructing traffic or other buses. If you are at a terminus, make sure you are not blocking other buses from entering or departing the area or accessing designated stops.[32]

  1. [26]
    In cross-examination, Mr Satterly agreed that adherence to the Handbook was a condition of his employment as a Bus Operator by the Council.[33]

The Code of Conduct

  1. [27]
    The Council also had in place, at all times material to the fourth, fifth and sixth allegations of misconduct, a Code of Conduct that bound its employees ('the Code').
  1. [28]
    The Code relevantly provides:

2  APPLICABILITY

All Brisbane City Council workers, regardless of their employment status, role or position must be familiar with and follow the spirit and content of the Code of Conduct.

Brisbane City Council workers are:

  • employees of Council whether permanent, or temporary (whether working full-time, part-time or on a flexible working arrangement) or casual.[34]

…

4.1.2 Standards of conduct

4.1.2.1 Behaviour towards each other

We must all treat each other with trust, respect, honesty, fairness, sensitivity and dignity.Workers who supervise or manage others have a special responsibility to model this kind of behaviour, and to ensure that the people they supervise understand the standard of performance and behaviour that is expected of them.

You are expected to accommodate and respect different opinions and perspectives and manage disagreements by rational debate. You must not behave towards any other person in a way that could be perceived as intimidating, overbearing or as workplace bullying or sexual harassment.

Effective teamwork is an essential part of a productive workplace culture. Each team member is expected to work co-operatively with fellow workers and willingly participate and engage in team activities (e.g., meetings).[35]

…

4.4.2.6 Workplace health and safety

We are all committed to Zero Harm in the way we conduct our business and Council activities. You must take reasonable steps to ensure your own safety, health and welfare in the workplace. You also have a duty of care to both fellow workers and members of the public. This duty of care extends to both psychological and physical health and wellbeing.

We must all:

  • identify hazards and manage risks to health and safety
  • attend work fit and able to engage in Council activities safely
  • demonstrate behaviour in the workplace which ensures work is performed in a safe and effective manner[36]
  1. [29]
    In cross-examination, Mr Satterly agreed that, when employed by the Council, the Code applied to him.[37]

Mr Satterly's history of psychiatric illness

  1. [30]
    As set out in more detail below, Mr Satterly's principal contention is that his dismissal was unfair because his impugned conduct, the subject of the six substantiated allegations of misconduct as found by the Council, was a manifestation of his mental illness which he claims was caused by the Council over a period of time from 2018.
  1. [31]
    Mr Satterly's past psychiatric history is conveniently summarised by Dr Nothling in his report. Dr Nothling relevantly states:

He reported that his first treatment by a psychiatrist was by Dr Mahapatra, who he thought had started to treat him in 2018 for anxiety and PTSD, after the bus driver had been murdered in Brisbane. His last appointment with Dr Mahapatra was less than one month prior to seeing me and his next appointment would be in about one month's time. He was continuing to take Pristiq as prescribed by Dr Mahapatra.

In 2017, he had been treated by a psychologist he identified as Gail. who he had seen for one and a half years, on the basis of one visit per week. In 2021, he had commenced treatment with the psychologist, Mr Lee, who he had seen about 10 times. He thought the last time he saw Mr Lee was three or four months prior to seeing me. The last time he had see [sic] Gail, the psychologist, was in 2020. He did not consider that he needed to see either of the psychologists now, as he was feeling well.[38]

…

A report by the treating psychiatrist, Dr J Mahapatra, dated 12 June 2023.On 9 February 2023, a female driver came to him and informed him that he had parked wrongly. He then said that the NCC had a go at him and he felt berated. He presented to his treating psychiatrist on 11 March 2023 as anxious and worried about the incident, on him and his work. There were no blood test or diagnostic imaging results needed. It was noted that the relevant past medical history was that he had initially consulted Dr Mahapatra in October 2017, with symptoms of depression and anxiety. He had stated he had been diagnosed by his GP three years prior to 2017 and was on escitalopram for a couple of years but was not on it for a year prior to going on desvenlafaxine. He developed symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder around February 2017 when he started driving on the route where a bus driver had been set aflame and killed in 2016. He was still on desvenlafaxine 200mg and he did a host employment aimed for a graded return to work and was discharged by his psychologist. He and [sic] gone back to work in July 2019, but faced bullying at work and had been assaulted by a passenger. He was then started on sleep medication, temazepam. He was off work from August 2019. He had had suicidal ideation around September 2019. but by October 2020, he reported feeling well in his mood and then he had been back to work for a few months and the desvenlafaxine was reduced and ceased by December 2020. He was feeling better in his mood in June 2021, after being treated in an inpatient psychiatric unit, and felt fit to go back to work. His sleep had improved and he did not need sleep medications anymore.

On 16 December 2022, he had reported his mood was fine and he was taking his medications. He was to stay on desvenlafaxine 100mg. The doctor stated it was more likely that his diagnosis arising from the workplace incident on 9 February 2023 is a primary condition that is Adjustment Disorder with low mood and anxiety, rather than aggravation of his pre-existing condition of depression and anxious distress or PTSD, as these conditions were in remission prior to the incident. At that stage. he was fit to return to work in a full return to work. His condition was stable and stationary at that stage.[39]

The disciplinary process implemented by the Council and related events

  1. [32]
    Ms Lenz gave evidence in chief about the formal disciplinary process followed by the Council in respect of Mr Satterly and other related events. Ms Lenz' evidence was largely unchallenged.[40]Ms Baird's unchallenged evidence is also relevant.

Mr Satterly was placed on leave effective 14 February 2023

  1. [33]
    Mr Satterly, effective from 14 February 2023, was placed on special leave with pay to allow the investigation of allegations that he may have breached the Code as well as the Council's policies and procedures, and any relevant legislation, in respect of his conduct on 9 February 2023 and 13 February 2023, namely, his conduct the subject of the first to the fifth allegations of misconduct.[41]

The review initiated by the Council

  1. [34]
    On 28 February 2023, the Council provided terms of reference to an organisation called Ethical Edge for the purposes of conducting a review of certain conduct of Mr Satterly on 9 February 2023 and 13 February 2023. The review was for the purposes of determining whether there had been any demonstrated breaches of the Code by Mr Satterly which would require a formal disciplinary process in line with the Council's relevant procedure, namely 'HRP 130 Managing Poor Performance and Misconduct' ('the Council's Misconduct Procedure').[42]

Mr Satterly's 2023 workers' compensation application

  1. [35]
    On 11 March 2023, Mr Satterly attended on Dr Jataveda Mahapatra, Psychiatrist, of the Norman Park Specialist Centre. By a workers' compensation work capacity certificate dated that same day, Dr Mahapatra certified that:
  • he examined Mr Satterly on that day;
  • Mr Satterly was suffering from 'Depression and Anxiety', an injury which Mr Satterly stated occurred on 9 February 2023 and in respect of which Mr Satterly stated the mechanism of injury was '…conflict with colleague and management (NCC)';
  • he prescribed  Pristiq for Mr  Satterly and that he did not prescribe medication for Mr Satterly that may impede safe work, travel or cognitive function;
  • Mr Satterly required treatment from 11 March 2023 until 11 June 2023;
  • Mr Satterly's  certified injury did not prevent a return to  pre-injury duties; and
  • Mr Satterly needed a supportive workplace.[43]
  1. [36]
    By application signed by Mr Satterly and dated 12 March 2023, he applied for workers' compensation to City WorkCover. In that application, which was given claim number 230325,[44]Mr Satterly:
  • described the injury he suffered as being '…mental illness';
  • claimed that the injury occurred on Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 7.00 pm and that the injury occurred at the 'Browns Plains Terminus'; and
  • claimed that he stopped work because of his injury on 10 February 2023 and that he had returned to work, since having his injury, on 13 February 2023 '… for one day'[45]('Mr Satterly's 2023 workers' compensation application').

The review report and subsequent show cause process

  1. [37]
    In about April 2023, Ethical Edge provided a written report to the Council.[46]
  1. [38]
    On 19 April 2023, Ms Lenz reviewed the Ethical Edge report. As a consequence of her review, by letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz provided Mr Satterly with an opportunity to respond in writing (by 5 June 2023) to the six allegations of misconduct, and further, to provide reasons as to why his employment with the Council should continue should the six allegations of misconduct be substantiated.[47]In this regard, Ms Lenz wrote:
  1. This letter is providing you with a formal opportunity to respond in writing to:
  1. allegations made against you, as set out in Attachment A of this letter; and
  1. provide reasons as to why your employment with Brisbane City Council (Council) should continue, should the allegations of misconduct be substantiated.[48]
  1. [39]
    In respect of the six allegations of misconduct, Attachment A to Ms Lenz' letter set out:
  • each allegation;
  • the event or incident that gave rise to each allegation;
  • the evidence in support of each allegation; and
  • the relevant legislation and relevant provisions of the Code.[49]
  1. [40]
    Following Ms Lenz' letter to him dated 23 May 2023, and up to 28 August 2023, Mr Satterly sent 19 emails to Ms Lenz and to other Council employees and representatives, including the Mayor.[50]
  1. [41]
    The documentary evidence does establish that:
  • on 23 May 2023, Mr Satterly did request another Council officer provide him with:
  1. –
    certain further particulars and evidence in respect of some of the six allegations of misconduct made against him; and
  1. –
    an extension of time in which to respond to Ms Lenz' letter dated 23 May 2023;[51]and
  • on 26 May 2023, further particulars and evidence were provided to Mr Satterly by Ms Lenz and she extended the time for Mr Satterly to respond until 9 June 2023;[52]
  • following Mr Satterly's further correspondence to the other Council employee seeking a further extension of time to respond to Ms Lenz' letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz did provide Mr Satterly with a further extension of time until 16 June 202 to respond to her letter dated 23 May 2023;[53]and then, following a further email from Mr Satterly on 16 June 2023, Ms Lenz provided a further extension until 3 July 2023;[54]and
  • on the last occasion Ms Lenz provided Mr Satterly with an extension of time to respond, she expressly emphasised to him that he should directly respond to the six allegations of misconduct contained in her letter to him dated 23 May 2023.[55]
  1. [42]
    The documentary evidence further establishes that of the eight emails Mr Satterly sent to Ms Lenz after 23 May 2023,[56]he did not respond to the precise allegations and issues raised by Ms Lenz in her letter to Mr Satterly dated 23 May 2023.
  1. [43]
    As referred to in his written submissions to this Commission,[57]Mr Satterly gave evidence why he did not respond to the precise allegations and issues raised by Ms Lenz.  In re-examination, Mr Satterly gave the following evidence:

How would you rate the performance management procedure?‑‑‑It’s not fair. It doesn’t take into consideration people’s injuries. They want you gone and they find something to get rid of you on. It’s not right. I had an injury and they ignored my  injury and terminated me for my injury.

And was there a specific reason that you didn’t answer the allegations put you in the show cause notice?‑‑‑It was pointless.

In what way was it pointless?‑‑‑She was going to sack me regardless and I – I felt it was wrong to let her – to encourage her to go down that path. I wanted to talk about my mental illness, my injury, and she wouldn’t listen to me. So I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t acknowledge what she was doing.[58]

  1. [44]
    Further, in his responses to Ms Lenz, Mr Satterly:
  • did not claim his alleged conduct, the subject of the six allegations of misconduct made against him by Ms Lenz, was specifically attributable to his mental illness; and
  • made the precise claim to Ms Lenz that because he had a mental illness injury that was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act 2003 (being an injury from three related workers' compensation claims from 2021 to 2023)[59]then, pursuant to s 232B of the Workers' Compensation Act 2003, the Council could not dismiss him.  
  1. [45]
    Mr Satterly's overall response to Ms Lenz is best exemplified by the email he sent to her on 24 June 2023. This email was sent by Mr Satterly following an earlier email from him to Ms Lenz in which he alleged that any termination of his employment would be contrary to s 232B of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.[60] In response, Ms Lenz had stated to Mr Satterly that the show cause process related to his conduct and events which occurred in February 2023, and that she would not be making any decision by reason of any illness or injury from which he may suffer such that s 232B of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 would not be triggered.[61]
  1. [46]
    In his email sent on 24 June 2023, Mr Satterly stated:

You stated,

"Council's investigation and the show cause process relate to your conduct and the events which occurred in February 2023. I will not be making any decisions related to your WorkCover claims and I will not be making any decision in the disciplinary process by reason of any illness or injury which you may suffer from, meaning that section 232B of the Workers [sic] Compensation and Rehabilitation Act is not triggered. Under those circumstances the full range of potential disciplinary outcomes is available to me, including termination of your employment."

After the events that occurred in February 2023 I made a City Workcover claim due to an injury. You are trying to terminate me due to that injury. This is occurring within a 12 month period of that injury. My Psychiatrist has stated that my three City Workcover claims are related. They are the same injury.

You are making decisions related to my City Workcover claims and you will be making decisions in the disciplinary process by reason of my illness or injury which I do suffer from, meaning that section 232B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act is triggered.

I am unsure as to why you think you know more than my psychiatrist or the Senior Claims Officer of City Workcover with regards to my injury. Why do you make statements inferring that you have knowledge about my City Workcover claims? You are not allowed to know this information.

What information is City Workcover supplying to you?

What information is City Workcover supplying to City Legal?

You contradict yourself with your statement. You intend to make a decision on the events of February 2023 that wholly incompass [sic] City Work-cover claim injury after stating.

"I will not be making any decisions related to your WorkCover claims." How do you know what does or does not relate to my City Workcover claims?

Have you discussed my City Workcover claims with my psychiatrist? Have you discussed my City Workcover claims with the Senior Claims Officer? I would like to know what medical information you are receiving from my psychiatrist and from the Senior Claims Officer of City Workcover.

Please forward to me all medical records you have been given regarding my City Workcover claims. This information is private.[62]

  1. [47]
    Ultimately, by letter dated 28 August 2023, Ms Lenz informed Mr Satterly that, having regard to the information available to her, she had determined that the six allegations of misconduct were substantiated.[63]
  1. [48]
    Ms Lenz then informed Mr Satterly that, in light of the seriousness of the substantiated allegations, he should anticipate that termination of employment was the likely outcome depending on any submissions in response he made to her; and, in that regard, Ms Lenz gave Mr Satterly until the close of business on 4 September 2023 to make submissions as to why a disciplinary outcome should not be imposed against him.[64]
  1. [49]
    In Schedule A to her letter dated 28 August 2023, Ms Lenz set out:
  • the allegation number and details of each allegation;
  • the event or incident that gave rise to each allegation; and
  • Ms Lenz' reasons for her conclusion that each of the six allegations of misconduct were substantiated.[65]
  1. [50]
    Mr Satterly initially responded by email sent on 4 September 2023[66]and then by further email sent on 10 September 2023.[67]The theme of this correspondence from Mr Satterly was that he was suffering from a mental illness that was caused by the Council, that he was being bullied and intimidated by the Council, and that the Council was proposing to terminate his employment because of his mental illness.
  1. [51]
    By his email sent on 10 September 2023, Mr Satterly relevantly wrote:

Due to the unethical nature of your 'Show Cause' to this point, there will be inevitable long term consequences as a result.

…

You will state that my mental illness has nothing to do with my termination. I will point out to the Commissioner of the Industrial Relations Commission that you ignored the warnings from the Brisbane City Council City Workcover Senior Claims Officer that you can not terminate an employee due to an injury that was caused by Brisbane City Council. I will point out your assumptions that you know what is involved in my Brisbane City Council City WorkCover claims and what is not. You do not know any details of my City Workcover claims. This has been confirmed in writing by my Brisbane City Council City Workcover Senior Claims Officer. The fact that you would claim to know what is involved in my City Workcover claims is very concerning. But I have enough confidence in the City Workcover Senior Claims Officer at this point to reassure me that you are lying.  It cannot be understated that your unethical targeting of my mental illness for the Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97purpose of your 'Show Cause' is a blatant display of bullying and intimidation by you and senior management.[68]

The decision to dismiss Mr Satterly

  1. [52]
    By the email Mr Satterly sent on 10 September 2023, he requested a meeting with Ms Lenz during which he would be accompanied by his support person. Ms Lenz responded to Mr Satterly by an email sent on 15 September 2023 in which she advised Mr Satterly that she rejected his request for a meeting on the basis that Mr Satterly did not address the allegations of misconduct she had made against him.[69]Ms Lenz stated:

Dear Mr Satterly

I do not agree with the allegations made in your email of 10 September 2023 in relation to the show cause process. I consider you have been granted procedural fairness and ample opportunity to address the allegations against you. I also strongly deny any allegation that bullying and intimidation have formed any part of the process.

I assure you that before any decision is made, all relevant matters raised by you during this process will have been taken into account.

To be clear, I am making a decision in relation to possible disciplinary action on the grounds of alleged misconduct which have been listed in your show cause letter. Despite your continued assertions, I am not considering any disciplinary action by reason of the existence of your injury. As I have pointed out earlier, all but one of the allegations arose from conduct that occurred at a time when you were at work, and arose out of the way you performed your duties and interacted with other employees. The final allegation relates to highly offensive written statements made by you to senior managers about other staff and the Council itself. These matters of misconduct stand as independent grounds for disciplinary action, and it is not necessary nor appropriate for me to consider disciplinary action for any other reason at this time, and I will not do so.

I note your request to meet with me. If I considered that you were intending to discuss the allegations of misconduct, and seeking to explain those particular actions, I may have considered your request more favourably. However you have not addressed those allegations in your written response, and I do not see any indication in your correspondence that you intend to do so in any meeting. Accordingly I do not consider a meeting will further assist the process in which I am engaged. I certainly do not consider that a general discussion about your injury and your multiple complaints about widespread and historical bullying are sufficiently relevant to the allegations I am required to decide.

A letter setting out my decision is attached to this email.

  1. [53]
    Ms Lenz' email had attached to it her letter dated 15 September 2023 which advised Mr Satterly of her decision to terminate his employment. That letter included Ms Lenz' reasons for her decision.[70]After summarising the history of the disciplinary process, Ms Lenz relevantly stated:

My response to you

  1. As Divisional Manager, Organisational Services I was appointed due to my impartiality and having independence from any previous matters with you. I am not taking advice from or consulting with anyone from Transport for Brisbane. Throughout this process I have considered the independent report, viewed the CCTV footage, reviewed correspondence received from you (as set out in my letter of 28 August 2023) and reviewed your email to me from 4 September 2023. I have carefully considered the whole of this material for myself.
  1. My decision to terminate you is due to my view that allegations 1 to 6 have been substantiated. You have offered no rebuttal, explanation or excuse for the events described in allegations 1 to 5. Although you make some reference to the correspondence and statements referred to in allegation 6, you offer no specific reason why such matters should not be treated as very serious misconduct.
  2. You refer on a number of occasions to your mental illness and to the relationship between that mental illness and section 232B of the Workers [sic] Compensation Act. I do not consider that you have established any connection between the conduct referred to in the show cause letter and that section of the Workers [sic] Compensation Act.
  3. That section prohibits the termination of the employment of a worker who has suffered an injury, "solely or mainly because the worker is not fit for employment in a position because of the injury,"
  4. It is not suggested in this disciplinary proceeding that you are unfit for employment in your present position because of your mental illness. Council has been aware of your mental illness for some years and has been managing your employment throughout a long period, having full regard to the existence of that illness.
  5. In fact, at the time that the conduct described in allegations 1 to 5 occurred, you were working in your usual position, and there is no suggestion that you were incapable of doing so by reason of your mental illness. Rather, allegations 1 to 5 concern your refusal to comply with a number of rules and standards that apply to you while working in your position.
  6. Allegation 6 is not related to your work capacity at all, but rather concerns grossly offensive and obscene correspondence which you chose to send to a number of senior council officers.

…

  1. I have concluded that:
  • you have not provided any extenuating or mitigating circumstances in response to the allegations against you.
  • your response fails to demonstrate that you have genuine insight and awareness into the serious nature of your actions.
  • despite your extensive experience in this role, you have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to comply with your employee obligations.
  • each instance of your behaviour as set out in allegations 1 to 6 are, individually and collectively, unacceptable as a Council employee .
  • your behaviour is inconsistent with the continuation of your contract of employment.
  • Council simply cannot be confident that you can be trusted to perform your duties in future in a manner whereby such incidents do not continue to occur. For this reason, there has been a breakdown in the employment relationship between yourself and Council.
  • it is therefore not possible or reasonable to continue your employment, having regard to the obligations that Council has to its other employees, and to the general public who may be affected by your behaviour.
  1. [54]
    Mr Satterly was dismissed effective 15 September 2023 and was paid five weeks' pay in lieu of notice,[71]in the gross amount of $6,688.50.[72]

Dr Nothling's report

  1. [55]
    As stated earlier, on 13 February 2024, City WorkCover requested a report from Dr Nothling in respect of Mr Satterly's 2023 workers' compensation application. Dr Nothling interviewed Mr Satterly on 22 February 2024 for the purposes of preparing his report. Dr Nothling's report to City WorkCover is dated 11 March 2024.[73] 

Did Mr Satterly engage in the conduct the subject of the six acts of misconduct, as alleged by the Council, for which he was dismissed?

The first allegation

  1. [56]
    By letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz alleged that Mr Satterly failed to report a road incident, namely:

On 9 February 2023 at 4.55 pm, you failed to contact NCC after you were involved in an on-road incident [sic] your run print.[74]

  1. [57]
    The evidence cited in support of the allegation was:
  1. 1.1
    CCTV footage downloaded from 9 February 2023 shows:
  1. At approximately 4:55pm, whilst operating a bus in the Brisbane CBD, you pull out from stop 76 Queen St, Brisbane. In the course of doing so, the left rear panel of your bus collided with the front right-hand side of a white utility parked at the rear of the bus stop.
  1. You stop the bus, get out of the seat, and walk towards the utility.
  1. You then walk back to the bus, resume your seat and drive away without calling NCC or  putting on your seatbelt. The "please fasten seatbelt" alert can be heard.[75]
  1. [58]
    I have viewed the collision CCTV (part of Exhibit 12). The CCTV footage contains synchronised vision of various aspects of the bus including the driver's seat and front door of the bus, passengers in the bus and the outside of the non-driver's side of the bus. The CCTV depicts the clear collision between the rear non-driver's side of the bus and the front right hand side of the white utility vehicle near bus stop 76 on Queen Street on 9 February 2023. The white utility vehicle moves quite significantly when the bus collides with it. Mr Satterly then stops the bus, alights from the bus, walks about half way down the length of the bus and, very briefly, for a second or two, looks at the rear of the non-driver's side of the bus. Mr Satterly then gets back into the driver's seat on the bus and drives off. There is no CCTV footage of Mr Satterly closely examining the white utility vehicle for any damage to it. There is no evidence of Mr Satterly contacting the NCC about the collision when he gets back on the bus and recommences driving the bus.
  1. [59]
    Mr Satterly's evidence in chief was that he '…forgot'[76]to contact the NCC after the collision.
  1. [60]
    I find that Mr Satterly failed to contact the NCC after the collision with the white utility vehicle on 9 February 2023 as alleged, and that was contrary to what was required of him as set out in the Handbook and referred to in paragraphs [21] and [22] of these reasons.

The second allegation

  1. [61]
    By letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz alleged that Mr Satterly failed to wear a seatbelt, namely:

On 9 February 2023 at 4.56pm, you failed to wear your seatbelt while operating a Council bus.[77]

  1. [62]
    The evidence cited in support of this allegation was the same as for the first allegation.
  1. [63]
    The CCTV footage does not depict Mr Satterly wearing the seatbelt when he returned to the driver's seat and started driving the bus when he returned to the bus after the collision with the white utility vehicle near bus stop 76 on Queen Street. At that time, the audio of the CCTV footage records the bus's internal alert broadcasting 'please fasten seatbelt.'. The CCTV depicts Mr Satterly driving the bus between 16:55:44 and 16:56:01 before he put the seatbelt on. In cross-examination Mr Satterly conceded that he '…possibly' did not wear the seatbelt after driving the bus for about 10 seconds.[78]
  1. [64]
    I find that Mr Satterly failed to wear his seatbelt on 9 February 2023 as alleged, for a period of about 16 seconds, which was contrary to what was required of him as set out in the Handbook and by s 264 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management–Road Rules) Regulation 2009as referred to in paragraphs [23] and [24] of these reasons.

The third allegation

  1. [65]
    By letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz made the following allegation:

On 9 February 2023, you failed to follow your run print.[79]

  1. [66]
    The evidence[80]cited in support of the allegation was:

3.1  In correspondence to your team leader on 14 February 2023, you indicated that you drove onto the 140 platform at Browns Plains, where you were going to wait a few minutes, then 15 minutes before you were due out you would move up to the 140 stop as the next service out.

3.2 This statement raised some questions about your on-time running, which were investigated.

3.3 A check of the data from the DCU shows you were running early at the following timing points:

Stop

Sched

Arrival

Actual

Arrival

Sched

Departure

Actual

Departure

Beenleigh Rd at Fruitgrove station

18:23:00

18:19:32

18:23:00

18:20:19

Gowan Rd at Gowan and Compton

18:32:00

18:28:02

18:32:00

18:28:24

Honeysuckle Way at The Parks

18:36:00

18:31:29

18:36:00

18:32:06

Honeysuckle Way at Sunflower

18:40:00

18:33:08

18:40:00

18:34:05

Browns Plains station

18:52:00

18:40:20

n/a

n/a

  1. [67]
    Ms Lenz' evidence was that Mr Satterly failed to follow the run print as alleged.[81]Mr Satterly gave no evidence in chief denying the allegation. Mr Satterly's evidence in cross-examination was that run prints were '…garbage'.[82]
  1. [68]
    While in cross-examination, it was not directly put to Mr Satterly that he did not comply with the run print as alleged,[83]because of the absence of any denial from Mr Satterly that he did not meet the relevant run print, I find that:
  • Mr Satterly did not comply with the run print as alleged; and
  • Mr Satterly engaged in early running on the four occasions outlined above which was contrary to what was required of him as set out in the Handbook as referred to in paragraph [25] of these reasons.

The fourth allegation

  1. [69]
    By letter dated 23 May 2023, in relation to the fourth and fifth allegations, Ms Lenz alleged that Mr Satterly had engaged in '…(inappropriate conduct towards co-workers on 9 and 13 February 2023)'.[84]
  1. [70]
    In respect of the fourth allegation, Ms Lenz alleged that Mr Satterly used '…inappropriate conduct towards co-worker, potentially constituting workplace bullying and harassment' namely:

On 9 February 2023 at 6.48pm you displayed inappropriate behaviour towards a colleague when they approached you and suggested that you were holding up in a stop at Browns Plains.[85]

  1. [71]
    The evidence cited in support of the allegation was:

4.1  At approximately 6:48pm, while holding up at Browns Plains busway station, you were approached and spoken to by a colleague.

4.2  In this conversation:

  1. You open the door and your colleague states "You're holding up in an active spot".
  1. You reply "Am I?"'
  1. Your colleague states "there's a 140 that's going to Greenbank RSL and a 140 that that's tried to get in here".
  1. You respond "Oh fuck, that's terrible, isn't it?"and "tell someone who gives a crap all right?"
  2. You suddenly close the door while your colleague is standing close to the doors.
  1. Your colleague walks away; you open the doors and yell out "What's wrong? Bye!"then close the doors.[86]
  1. [72]
    This incident is depicted in Exhibit 13. The CCTV footage relevantly shows the bus that Mr Satterly is driving pulling into the Browns Plains bus station and then parking at 18:42:59. There was another bus already parked at that bus station in the first parking position at the end of the platform. Mr Satterly parked his bus behind the other bus, on my best estimation, about the length of one and a half buses behind the other bus. The other bus then departs the Browns Plains bus station at 18:43:06. At 18:47:31, another bus, driven by the female Bus Operator, pulls up at the bus station and parks in front of Mr Satterly's bus in the first parking position at the end of the platform. Mr Satterly can be seen looking up and observing this other bus parking because at that time he was watching something on his mobile phone and looked up at the bus driven by the female Bus Operator when it came in to park.  At 18:47:47, another bus is seen momentarily stopping parallel to, and almost in line with, Mr Satterly's bus. The indicator on this other bus is illuminated indicating that the bus intended to stop at the bus station. Mr Satterly looks up at that bus as it momentarily stops near his bus. On the CCTV evidence, I drawn the inference that this other bus could not park in a parking position at the Browns Plains bus station, behind the female Bus Operator's parked bus, because of the location where Mr Satterly had parked his bus.  At 18:48:02, that other bus then drives forward and stops on the road parallel to, and almost in line with, the female Bus Operator's parked bus at the bus station. Mr Satterly looks up at that bus as it momentarily stops on the road near the female Bus Operator's parked bus. That other bus then drives away.
  1. [73]
    At 18:48:33, the female Bus Operator is seen leaving her bus and walking down the bus station platform up to Mr Satterly's bus. At 18:48:50, Mr Satterly opens the door to his bus upon the female Bus Operator's approach to his bus.
  1. [74]
    A conversation then takes place between the female Bus Operator and Mr Satterly as particularised by Ms Lenz in her letter dated 23 May 2023. Mr Satterly then closes the door to his bus, while the female Bus Operator is standing close to the door, as alleged by Ms Lenz.
  1. [75]
    On the basis of the CCTV footage, I find that the facts as alleged by Ms Lenz, namely what Mr Satterly allegedly said to the female Bus Operator, and his alleged conduct in closing the door to his bus, are proven.

The fifth allegation

  1. [76]
    By letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz alleged that Mr Satterly engaged in '…inappropriate conduct towards co-worker, potentially constituting workplace bullying and harassment', namely:

On 13 February 2023 approximately 6.55pm you displayed inappropriate behaviour when talking about your work colleague in a rude and disrespectful way to NCC.[87]

  1. [77]
    The evidence cited in support of the allegation was:

5.1 At approximately 6:55pm, NCC called you via the bus radio to gain further information about why you were holding up at the stop.

5.2 In this conversation:

  1. The NCO calls and says they had been advised you were "holding up on the 140 stop making it difficult for other operators to use the stop."
  1. You respond "No, I told her to get a life... I can park...it's ... Fuck she needs to get a life hey. Who would …What's her name? What is her name?"Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97
  1. The NCO said he could not provide her details.
  1. You raise your voice and say 'Fuck, she needs to get … she needs to get a fucking life!". You start yelling "That woman needs to get A. Fucking. Life! All right?! She needs to get a life. All right, I'm going home now. I'm going home now okay? I'm going home now. Okay? You can cover the rest of my work, I'm going home."
  1. The NCO asks for your run number, which you provide.
  1. You again state "She needs to get a fucking life that woman".
  1. The NCO states "no worries, mate head back to the depot, thank you mate".

5.3 You drove back to the depot and completed a Bus Incident report form for the collision accident that occurred earlier in your shift. This was the first notification to Council of the occurrence of that accident.

5.4  On 13 February 2023, at approximately 3:40pm you attended at the lunchroom of the Garden City Bus Depot, at which time you approached your colleague who had been involved in the incident from 9 February 2023, and initiated a conversation with her.

5.5  This conversation continued for between one to two minutes, after which you left, then returned a few moments later to recommence a conversation with your colleague.

5.6 The interaction occurred in the presence of, and was witnessed by, several other employees.

5.7 The conversation included the following:

  1. You say to your colleague several times to "mind your own business", and instruct her to do her job and stay away from you.
  1. You ask several times "How long have you been driving?"
  1. Another employee tells you to "let it go" several times.
  1. As you are speaking very loudly and aggressively, Ms Lorraine Brooks, Depot Operations Team Leader heard the conversation from the office area and approached you and your colleague. She checked the welfare of your colleague to whom you were addressing loud and aggressive remarks.
  1. You start yelling "She dobbed me in": "how long has she been driving?".
  1. You loudly called your colleague "a fucking idiot" then walked away.

5.8  You returned a short time later to Ms Brooks and your colleague and ask if your colleague is going to dob you in if you go upstairs to eat your lunch.

5.9  Ms Brooks reminds you of the Code of Conduct and respect for others and asks you to stop talking to your colleague.

5.10 You walk away.

5.11 At approximately 9:04pm, at the Garden City Depot, you again approach your colleague and initiate a further conversation. Another bus operator was present and witnessed this conversation. In this conversation:

  1. You aggressively ask your colleague several times "Was it worth it?"and "How long have you been here?".
  1. The witness says to use several times "Let it go", and when you persisted with loud aggressive statements, the witness tells you to "fuck off". He asks you the same question, "is it worth it?"and asks you to leave.[88]
  1. [78]
    I have listened to the audio contained in the Browns Plains CCTV, the female Bus Operator recording, the NCC recording and the first and second lunch room recordings.

Mr Satterly's conduct when speaking to the NCC Operator on 9 February 2023 about the female Bus Operator

  1. [79]
    The undisputed evidence is that following the interaction between the female Bus Operator and Mr Satterly, as I found in respect of the fourth allegation, the female Bus Operator reported those events to an NCC Operator.  The female Bus Operator reported Mr Satterly's response to her and that he closed the bus door on her.[89]
  1. [80]
    The same NCC Operator then called Mr Satterly. This conversation was recorded on the CCTV of Mr Satterly's bus and is part of Exhibit 13. I find that the facts as alleged in paragraph 5.2 of the written allegations, put by Ms Lenz to Mr Satterly and as set out above, are proven by virtue of Exhibit 13.
  1. [81]
    In cross-examination, Mr Satterly justified his conduct when speaking to the NCC Operator on the basis that he was having '… high anxiety' and that he had a '…mental illness caused by Brisbane City Council.'[90]For the reasons I give below, I reject Mr Satterly's claim that he had any mental illness which had a causal link or connection with his conduct the subject of the six allegations of misconduct made by the Council.
  1. [82]
    In light of the audio evidence of the CCTV recording in Exhibit 13, I find that Mr Satterly did make the statements to the NCC Operator about the female Bus Operator, and made them in the manner as alleged.

Mr Satterly's conduct towards the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023 in the Garden City Depot lunch room

  1. [83]
    Exhibits 16 and 17 include audio recordings of:
  • Mr Satterly's conversation with the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023 in the lunch room at the Garden City bus depot; and
  • Mr Satterly's subsequent conversation with the female Bus Operator and a male worker on 13 February 2023 in the lunch room at the Garden City bus depot.
  1. [84]
    During the hearing and after the audio recordings (eventually marked as exhibits 16 and 17) were played in court, I asked Ms Brooks, counsel for the Council, how the recordings were made. I was told that the female Bus Operator recorded them herself, they were brought to the attention of the Ethical Edge investigator and they were taken into account by Ms Lenz in her decision.[91]
  1. [85]
    In re-examination, Mr Satterly stated that:
  • he did not know, until the hearing, that the female Bus Operator made the recordings;
  • she did not tell him that he was being recorded; and
  • it seemed that the Council has used '…illegal means.'[92]
  1. [86]
    Despite his evidence in re-examination, Mr Satterly made no objection to the subsequent tender of the above recordings as exhibits 16 and 17.[93]
  1. [87]
    However, in written submissions, Mr Satterly submitted that:
  • the audio recordings were made in secret by the female Bus Driver;
  • the audio recordings were edited to remove an alleged threat by the male worker made on 13 February 2023 to get him (Mr Satterly) for assault by closing the bus door on the female Bus Operator at the Browns Plains bus station on 9 February 2023; and
  • according to the '…IP Act, a secret recording cannot be communicated to another person not involved in the conversation' and '…cannot be used as evidence.'[94]
  1. [88]
    The Council submits, by reference to s 45(2) of the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 ('the IP Act'), that:
  • the female bus operator was able to record a conversation to which she was a party and could communicate that recording for the protection of her lawful interests;
  • the female bus operator could communicate that recording to a person who has such an interest in the recording to make the communication to them reasonable in the circumstances; and
  • the recordings can be communicated or published in the course of legal proceedings.[95]
  1. [89]
    The Council further submits that there is no evidence before the Commission that the audio recordings have been edited by it or by the female Bus Operator, and that, in any event, the alleged threat to get Mr Satterly for assault made by the male worker is irrelevant.[96]
  1. [90]
    In general, I accept the Council's submissions. This is for the following reasons.
  1. [91]
    First, by the combined effect of s 43(1) and s 43(2)(a) of the IP Act, it is not an offence for a person to use a listening device to record a private conversation, where the person using the listening device, is a party to the private conversation. On the audio evidence before me:
  • by the first lunch room recording, the female Bus Operator was a party to a conversation Mr Satterly had with her on 13 February 2023 because she is heard speaking to Mr Satterly; and
  • by the second lunch room recording, the female Bus Operator was also a party to a later conversation Mr Satterly had with her on 13 February 2023 because, again, she is heard speaking to Mr Satterly.
  1. [92]
    Secondly, s 45 of the IP Act relevantly provides:

45  Prohibition on communication or publication of private conversations by parties thereto

(1)  A person who, having been a party to a private conversation and having used a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to that conversation, subsequently communicates or publishes to any other person any record of the conversation made, directly or indirectly, by the use of the listening device or any statement prepared from such a record is guilty of an offence against this Act and is liable on conviction on indictment to a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

 (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply where the communication or publication–

  (a)  is made to another party to the private conversation or with the consent, express or implied, of all other parties to the private conversation, being parties referred to in section 42(2)(a); or

  (b)  is made in the course of legal proceedings; or

  (c)  is not more than is reasonably necessary–

  (i)  in the public interest; or

  (ii)  in the performance of a duty of the person making the communication or publication; or

  (iii)  for the protection of the lawful interests of that person; or

  (d) is made to a person who has, or is believed, on reasonable grounds, by the person making the communication or publication to have, such an interest in the private conversation as to make the communication or publication reasonable under the circumstances in which it is made.

  1. [93]
    On the evidence before me, the female Bus Operator actually provided the audio recordings that she made (which included the two conversations Mr Satterly had with her on 13 February 2023) to the Council, namely, to the Manager of the Garden City depot (Mr Tim Couch).[97]The recordings were then provided to Ethical Edge for the purposes of its review.[98]
  1. [94]
    In my view, having regard to s 45(2)(d) of the IP Act, the female Bus Operator could lawfully communicate that record of her conversations with Mr Satterly to the Council. This is because the female Bus Operator had reasonable grounds to believe the Council had an interest in her record of her conversations with Mr Satterly on 13 February 2023, so as to make her communication of them to the Council reasonable under the circumstances in which the communication was made. I form this view because the circumstances in which the communication was made were:
  • (by Ms Baird's unchallenged evidence) on 15 February 2023, the female Bus Operator complained to the Council about Mr Satterly's allegedly aggressive behaviour, on 13 February 2023, towards her;[99]and
  • the Council was Mr Satterly's employer with the obvious duty to provide the female Bus Operator with a safe place of work and the Council, as the employer of both the female Bus Operator and of Mr Satterly, had the obvious power to investigate her allegations and, if the factual allegations were established, to take any necessary action against Mr Satterly for any proven misconduct. 
  1. [95]
    There is nothing in the IP Act that prevented the Council from subsequently providing that communicated record to Ethical Edge[100]and then, after its review, Ms Lenz relying on that evidence for her decision. Otherwise, there is nothing in the IP Act that made the female Bus Operator's lawful recordings of her conversations with Mr Satterly on 13 February 2023 inadmissible to this Commission.
  1. [96]
    Whether or not the male co-worker said to Mr Satterly that he would be up for assault is irrelevant to the issue I have to determine.
  1. [97]
    I only rely on Exhibits 16 and 17 to the extent they record what Mr Satterly said to the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023. Exhibits 16 and 17 to that extent, prove the facts alleged in respect of the fifth allegation about Mr Satterly's conduct towards the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023 in the lunch room at the Garden City bus depot.
  1. [98]
    Mr Satterly was cross-examined about what he said to the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023 in the lunch room at the Garden City bus depot. Mr Satterly denied particular parts of the conversation, stated that he could not remember particular parts of the conversation or alternatively stated that, at that time, he had a mental injury caused by the Council.[101]
  1. [99]
    Again, for the reasons I give below, I find that at the time Mr Satterly engaged in the conduct the subject of this allegation (and indeed at the time Mr Satterly engaged in the conduct the subject of all the allegations made against him) he was not suffering from a psychiatric condition that had a causal link or causal connection with the conduct in which he engaged.
  1. [100]
    In light of the evidence of the first and second lunch room recordings, I find that Mr Satterly did make the statements to the female Bus Operator as alleged in this allegation, and that he made them in the manner as alleged.

The sixth allegation

  1. [101]
    By letter dated 23 May 2023, Ms Lenz made the following allegation against Mr Satterly:

Describing senior management of Council and other senior officers in grossly obscene and offensive terms in written correspondence, contrary to Council's Code of Conduct and Values, including using inappropriate language towards Council management and implied threats of harm including death to Council officers.[102]

  1. [102]
    The events or incidents that gave rise to the allegation were stated to be the '…obscene, grossly offensive, disrespectful, threatening and inappropriate statements concerning current and previous Council officers' contained in Mr Satterly's letter sent to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March 2023; and that some of the same allegations were repeated in his further letter to Ms Abeyderra sent on 10 April 2023.[103] 
  1. [103]
    I will not set out all the parts of Mr Satterly's correspondence sent to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March 2023 and on 10 April 2023 that were cited by Ms Lenz, in her letter dated 23 May 2023, as evidence in support of this particular allegation. This is because I will reproduce the material parts of Mr Satterly's correspondence to Ms Abeydeera.

The letter Mr Satterly sent to Ms Abeydeeraon 23 March 2023

  1. [104]
    There was no dispute from Mr Satterly about the contents of this letter to Ms Abeydeera and no dispute from him that he was the author and sender of the letter.[104]
  1. [105]
    On a plain reading of the text of the letter, Mr Satterly's purpose for sending the letter to Ms Abeydeera, who had been recently appointed as Divisional Manager of Transport for Brisbane, was to inform her that:
  • he had a mental illness;
  • as found by the Workers' Compensation Regulator in 2018 and 2020, '…the Council is the major significant contributing factor to my mental illness;' and
  • the reasons why the Council, including particular individuals employed by the Council, caused his mental illness and that of others, namely, through alleged bullying, intimidation and harassment.[105]
  1. [106]
    Mr Satterly then went on to make comments about specific employees.
  1. [107]
    Ms Baird's uncontested evidence sets out certain events concerning Mr Satterly's employment by the Council. Ms Baird gives evidence of certain facts that establish the background to certain matters referred to by Mr Satterly in his letter to Ms Abeydeerasent on 23 March 2023. A concise summary of the relevant facts is as follows.
  1. [108]
    On 21 May 2021, a passenger made a complaint about Mr Satterly's conduct when driving a Council bus. Following Mr Satterly sending to the Council a video of himself trying to choke himself, he was transported to the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Although Mr Satterly was cleared to return to work by his treating psychiatrist on 30 June 2021, he did not return to work on that day. Mr Satterly was subsequently directed by the Council to attend an independent medical examination. Following other public conduct by which he criticised the Council as an employer, Mr Satterly was given a further direction to attend another independent medical examination. After attending that examination, Mr Satterly notified of an industrial dispute to this Commission, in respect of which a compulsory conference was held on 31 March 2022 from which it was agreed that Mr Satterly would return to work, on a graduated return to work plan, on 10 May 2022.[106]
  1. [109]
    Following a further absence from work, Mr Satterly was directed to undergo another independent medical examination which took place on 15 July 2022. Mr Satterly was then directed to attend a meeting with his Depot Manager on 2 August 2022. Mr Satterly failed to attend that meeting and was subsequently directed to return to work on 15 August 2022. Mr Satterly failed to attend work on that day.  Ultimately, on 28 September 2022, Mr Satterly attended work for the purposes of commencing transitional work arrangements, which continued until 9 October 2022. On 10 October 2022, Mr Satterly resumed his substantive shifts.[107]
  1. [110]
    Mr Satterly then filed, in this Commission, a General Protections application against the Council alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his mental illness. On 31 October 2022, a compulsory conference was held before the Commission in respect of that application.  Following that conference, on 3 November 2022, Mr Satterly wrote to Mr Colin Jensen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Council ('Mr Jensen'), in which Mr Satterly referred to him (Mr Satterly) self-harming and stating that he (Mr Satterly) had handguns.[108]The Council immediately reported to the Queensland Police Service the contents of Mr Satterly's letter to Mr Jensen. The Queensland Police Service determined to conduct a welfare check on Mr Satterly and police officers attended Mr Satterly's home at midnight on 3 November 2022 for that purpose. Following a meeting on 7 November 2022 between Council managers and Mr Satterly to discuss his health and well-being, he was directed by the Council to attend a further independent medical examination with Dr Ashwani Garg, Consultant Psychiatrist ('Dr Garg') on 2 December 2022 to determine if he was fit to resume shifts.[109]
  1. [111]
    Mr Satterly's letter sent to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March 2023 consisted of ten pages.  
  1. [112]
    Relevantly to one of the specific allegations to which Mr Satterly was given the opportunity to respond by Ms Lenz in her letter to him dated 23 May 2023, and relevantly to my ultimate conclusion about whether Mr Satterly engaged in misconduct in respect of that specific allegation, Mr Satterly wrote:

I explained to the Police Officers that their visit to my address at midnight was a deliberate act of malice to intimidate me. It is harassment on Colin Jensen's part, as the letter was not threatening to him in anyway. The Police Officers had no issue with the wording of the letter.I told the Police Officers that Colin Jensen and City Legal can now say without lying this time, that a 'welfare check' at my home by the Police was done due to my mental illness….I was extremely angry that Colin Jensen would involve my family and have them scared by a visit from the police in the middle of the night. I said Colin Jensen was a "vindictive prick" and a "massive cunt" and that they need to write that in their notes.The Police Officers took pictures of City Legal's 'Form 22- Response and counter claim number 14 a, b, c, d,' and a copy of the letter to Colin Jensen. They were satisfied that I represented no harm to myself and anyone else. They realised that this was a legal issue involving BCC and left my home.[110]

The letter Mr Satterly sent to Ms Abeydeeraon 10 April 2023

  1. [113]
    Mr Satterly's letter sent to Ms Abeydeera on 10 April 2023 consisted of one page.There was no dispute from Mr Satterly about its contents or that he was the author and sender of the letter.[111]
  1. [114]
    Relevantly to one of the specific allegations to which Mr Satterly was given the opportunity to respond by Ms Lenz in her letter to him dated 23 May 2023, and relevantly to my ultimate conclusion about whether Mr Satterly engaged in misconduct in respect of that specific allegation, Mr Satterly wrote:

My "massive cunt" remark regarding Colin Jensen still stands.[112]

  1. [115]
    Ms Lenz identified other parts of Mr Satterly's correspondence to Ms Abeydeera which she alleged supported the sixth allegation of misconduct. Ms Lenz ultimately found that the allegation was made out from the content of that correspondence from Mr Satterly. On my consideration of the evidence, it was open to Ms Lenz to find the sixth allegation of misconduct proven by also having regard to those other identified parts of Mr Satterly's correspondence to Ms Abeydeera.
  1. [116]
    It is unnecessary for me to detail those other parts of Mr Satterly's correspondence to Ms Abeydeera. This is because, in respect of my ultimate determination about Mr Satterly's application for reinstatement, I find that Mr Satterly, by his correspondence to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March 2023 and on 10 April 2023, directly referred to Mr Jensen as a '…vindictive prick' and as a '…massive cunt.'

Did Mr Satterly have a psychiatric injury, the manifestation of which was his impugned conduct the subject of the six acts of alleged misconduct?

Mr Satterly's claim

  1. [117]
    In summary, Mr Satterly claims, in part, that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable because his impugned conduct, the subject of the six allegations of misconduct made by the Council, was a manifestation of his mental illness which was caused by the Council. Mr Satterly further submits that (alleged) fact was ignored by Ms Lenz in making her decision to dismiss him. 
  1. [118]
    I clarified that this was actually the case being advanced by Mr Satterly when he opened his case:

HIS HONOUR: So in summary, then, your case is that – is that the unfairness was on the part of the council because it knowingly disregarded Mr Satterly’s psychiatric or psychological history and the connection it had with the six different incidents of his conduct that occurred for which he was dismissed. So that’s – in a nutshell that’s what the case is? 

MR McAULEY: It is, and he had a psychiatric assessment as part of his WorkCover claim for the incident on that day, and the psychiatrist reports have been sent through. Dr Nothling has concluded that he suffered a psychological injury on that day. So even when we take all those factors into account according to the WorkCover legislation that he shouldn’t be terminated within 12 months of a psychiatric injury.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that’s not the jurisdiction – I did read that in the material.

MR McAULEY: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: That’s not the jurisdiction that Mr Satterly’s enlivened. But I’m not conducting a hearing in respect of an application that he’s made under the Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act for reinstatement. I’m – the jurisdiction that Mr Satterly has enlivened is the jurisdiction – excuse me, the jurisdiction under section 317 of the Industrial Relations Act. So in terms of – in terms of why his dismissal – the case for Mr Satterly is that his dismissal was unfair because the council knowingly disregarded his psychological and psychiatric history and the connection it had with the conduct in which he engaged for which he was dismissed in a – – –

MR McAULEY: Correct.[113]

  1. [119]
    In his final written submissions, Mr Satterly submitted that:
  • he was deeply affected by the physical and verbal attacks on Council Bus Operators and by the vulnerability of Council Bus Operators;[114]
  • there was a lack of response by the Council to Bus Operator safety, particularly following the death of Bus Operator Mr Manmeet Alisher on 28 October 2016;[115]
  • he developed an avoidance behaviour with '…anxiety depression PTSD in 2016', in 2017 he was suspended because of his mental illness and then made a workers' compensation claim, which was initially rejected, but then accepted on review following which he was off work on workers' compensation for 16 months;[116]
  • for the majority of that period of 16 months '…he would have one or two psychologist appointments per week, one psychiatrist appointment per week and a GP appointment every fortnight to monitor his recovery. He was prescribed anti-depressants and benzodiazepines';[117]
  • he was the Garden City depot union delegate and for more than ten years, he '… and hundreds of other Garden City drivers' had been subject to bullying by the Depot Manager and he had been self-harming to cope with the guilt he felt in failing to stop the harm caused to the drivers;[118]
  • he sent a CCTV recording of him self-harming, with an electrical cord, to the Chief Executive Officer of the Council;[119] 
  • after the suicide of certain bus operators '…who relented to bullying by management', in 2016-2017 he fantasised about taking his own life and that of the Garden City depot Manager;[120]and
  • on 12 March 2023, he made a City WorkCover claim for a mental illness injury he received after he was involved in a minor vehicle Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97accident while driving a BCC bus.[121]
  1. [120]
    Mr Satterly then relevantly submitted:
  1. Matthew Satterly was terminated for the incidents that he detailed in his City Workcover claim. Matthew Satterly repeatedly told Anne Lenz in writing that there was a City Workcover claim number 230325 currently being processed that totally encompassed the events of his termination. Anne Lenz ignored Matthew Satterly's claims. In processing claim 230325, Matthew Satterly was sent to a Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97Brisbane City Council IME psychiatrist, Dr Nothling, for a psychiatric evaluation on 22 February 2024.

…

  1. Anne Lenz needed to use Matthew Satterly's own statements regarding mental illness to terminate him.  She relied on his own testimony regarding his battle with mental illness to vilify him. But Anne Lenz did not want to acknowledge Matthew Satterly's mental illness when it was used in his defence. She was kept in the dark just enough by Ethical Standards so she can claim, " I don't know a lot of detail about it, though."

…

  1. Matthew Satterly's termination was unjust due to his long history with mental illness that was caused by Brisbane Transport. This was the determination in Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 972018, 2020 and 2024 by the Industrial Relations office Workers Compensation Regulatory Review Unit. This was not taken into consideration by Anne Lenz.  Anne Lenz did however use Matthew Satterly's historical mental illness testimony to terminate him.
  1. Matthew Satterly's termination was unreasonable in that there was a current Brisbane City Council City Workcover claim that involved all aspects of the events that he was being criticised for by Anne Lenz. Despite Matthew Satterly Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97asking to talk to Anne Lenz in person before she made her decision, she refused.Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97Anne Lenz was unreasonable in not listening to Matthew Satterly's concerns that he was not being treated fairly.Matthew Satterly has a BCC IME report that specifically attributed his actions to a mental illness injury. Matthew Satterly was Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97discriminated against due to his mental illness.[122]
  1. [121]
    The Council submits that Dr Nothling's report expressly stated that Mr Satterly was in remission from his mental health concerns as at 9 February 2023 and further, that Dr Nothling does not opine that Mr Satterly's conduct on 9 and 13 February 2023 was because he was suffering a mental health condition.[123]
  1. [122]
    The Council then submits that, as a consequence:
  • Mr Satterly's mental health did not play a significant role of the events of 9 February and 13 February 2023;
  • the seriousness of Mr Satterly's conduct cannot be accepted or ignored;
  • Mr Satterly's ability to engage with the disciplinary process was not impacted significantly by any incapacity; and
  • any failure by Ms Lenz to take into account Mr Satterly's medical history is not so significant such that it renders his dismissal to be harsh.[124]

What is the evidence in respect of Mr Satterly's claim?

Mr Satterly's own evidence

  1. [123]
    Mr Satterly, in his affidavit (Exhibit 3), did not give any direct or clear evidence that any psychiatric injury or illness he had, as of and from February 2023, had any contributory effect on his conduct the subject of the six allegations of misconduct made by Ms Lenz. Mr Satterly did not give any evidence in his affidavit that directly dealt with his conduct that was relied upon by Ms Lenz to terminate his employment.  The closest his affidavit evidence came to these issues was in paragraph 5 where Mr Satterly stated:

5 Anne Lenz referenced the 2017 'Gotcha' from my voluntary admission to Samantha Abeydeera. She used my mental illness that BCC gave me to terminate me, Manja Lalovic of Wottonkearney [sic] is highlighting this admission again in her Employer Response number 7. Mental illness is uncomfortable, ugly and confronting. I find it distasteful that they use my mental illness that was caused by BCC, to punish me. I voluntarily shared these secrets of my 'Black Dog'. I told Samantha Abeydeera that this was an example of the desperation of a BCC employee with a mental illness due to bad management. The response of Senior Management is to turn this against the employee and use it to terminate them.

  1. [124]
    In his oral evidence in chief, Mr Satterly stated:
  • after the accident on 9 February 2023 (namely, when the bus he was driving collided with the parked white utility vehicle at stop 76 in Queen Street), he was stressed, not thinking clearly and was worried about what might happen to him;[125]
  • when the female Bus Operator approached him at the Browns Plains bus station, he did not know what she was talking about, he was '…not in the mood', his anxiety was high because '… I just had an accident' and he knew because of '…my mental illness' that he did not want her '…triggering me'; and it was for that reason he said to her: 'Look, I'm not interested' and closed the door of the bus '…on her face.';[126]
  • when the NCC Operator called him about a complaint that he was holding up the lead stop, he (the NCC Operator) '… triggered me' because his anxiety was '…too much' which is why he took himself out of service;[127]and
  • the Council's independent medical examiner said he '…had a mental illness injury that day.'[128]
  1. [125]
    Mr Satterly repeated these claims in his evidence in cross-examination.[129]
  1. [126]
    In his oral evidence in chief, Mr Satterly did not deal with the other allegations about his conduct the subject of the fifth and sixth allegations of misconduct, namely his alleged conduct towards the female Bus Operator in the Garden City bus depot lunch room on 13 February 2023 and his correspondence to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March 2023 and 10 April 2023. Mr Satterly, in his evidence in cross-examination about his conduct toward the female Bus Operator at the Garden City bus depot lunch room on the first occasion on 13 February 2023, blamed his conduct on his mental illness.[130]

The medical evidence

  1. [127]
    Dr Nothling's report was tendered by Mr Satterly. As set out earlier in these reasons, Dr Nothling's report was commissioned by City WorkCover for the purpose of determining Mr Satterly's workers' compensation application that was made on 12 March 2023.
  1. [128]
    In his report, Dr Nothling gave an account of the events of 9 and 13 February 2023 that Mr Satterly stated were the cause of his injury the subject of his 2023 application for workers' compensation. These are the same events the subject of the fourth and fifth allegations of misconduct.
  1. [129]
    Dr Nothling opines, in respect of the incidents the subject of Mr Satterly's 2023 application for workers' compensation, that while he did suffer an  adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood which was work related, it was of '…a short duration'[131]and that his best estimate was that Mr Satterly '…was probably well enough to resume bus driving by about two months after the injury of 9 February 2023'.[132]
  1. [130]
    More relevantly to the present issue, Dr Nothling opined that Mr Satterly's pre-existing psychiatric condition (which Mr Satterly had suffered prior to 9 February 2023) of depression and anxious distress or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (as diagnosed by Dr Mahapatra)[133]'…was in controlled remission as a result of ongoing treatment from his treating psychiatrist, from prior to, to following the subject incident of 9 February 2023.'[134]
  1. [131]
    Further, on the uncontested evidence of Ms Baird, on 19 December 2022, Dr Garg, after his interview with Mr Satterly on 2 December 2022 (for the purposes of the independent medical examination Mr Satterly was directed to undertake by the Council) opined that:
  • Mr Satterly's '…anxiety symptoms are not affecting his work capacity or judgement';[135]
  • Mr Satterly was fit to complete the inherent requirements of his role as a Bus Operator;[136]and
  • the risk of deterioration of '…Mr Satterly's underlying medical condition upon resuming his full role requirement as a bus operator is very low.'[137]
  1. [132]
    In particular, in his report, Dr Garg stated the following in answer to the fourth question in the letter of referral from the Council:
  1. Are the ongoing behaviours and actions provided in the background and current status sections of this referral letter a result of Mr Satterly's underlying medical condition/s or due to other personal factors?

The ongoing behaviours and actions provided in the background and current status sections of the letter of instruction, dated 30 November 2022 are due to Mr Satterly's personality rather than his psychiatric condition.

Mr Satterly has a strong sense of justice and a commitment to fighting for bus drivers' rights.

These personality attributes drive the behaviours and actions detailed in the background and current status sections of the letter of instruction.[138]

  1. [133]
    Dr Garg also made some recommendations to support a '…safe and sustainable return to the workplace for Mr Satterly', namely:
  1. Provision of a mentor with whom Mr Satterly can discuss his concerns about the council.
  2. Having face-to-face meetings with Mr Satterly to resolve issues instead of communicating via written documents.
  3. Courses or training in conflict management, if available.[139]
  1. [134]
    Ms Baird's affidavit did not exhibit the letter of instruction to Dr Garg which outlined Mr Satterly's '…ongoing behaviours and actions provided in the background and current status sections' as set out in his report. Ms Baird did exhibit the Council's letter to Mr Satterly, dated 11 November 2022, setting out the reasons for the Council's direction for him to be examined by Dr Garg regarding his fitness for work.[140]It is reasonable to infer that letter at least included some of Mr Satterly's '…ongoing behaviours and actions' that were brought to Dr Garg's attention.
  1. [135]
    It is also reasonable to infer that Mr Satterly's '…ongoing behaviours and actions' at least included those demonstrated by Mr Satterly at work, or connected with his work, in the lead up to the direction he was given by the Council to be examined by Dr Garg in December 2022. I have summarised some of those matters in paragraphs [108] to [110] of these reasons. They are sourced from Ms Baird's uncontested evidence.
  1. [136]
    The evidence of Dr Garg is that the ongoing behaviours and actions demonstrated by Mr Satterly, in the lead up to December 2022, were driven by his personality and not by any psychiatric condition from which he had suffered. This expert evidence is directly at odds with Mr Satterly's claim that the conduct for which he was dismissed had a causal connection or link with his past psychiatric injuries.
  1. [137]
    Mr Satterly re-commenced his duties as a Bus Operator on 1 February 2023.[141]

The evidence does not support Mr Satterly's claim

  1. [138]
    In determining this claim by Mr Satterly, I need to assess all the evidence including his own evidence and the medical evidence.
  1. [139]
    I am not persuaded of Mr Satterly's claim. This is for four reasons.
  1. [140]
    First, the uncontested evidence is that Mr Satterly was assessed as fit to resume bus driving duties as from 1 February 2023. The relevant events happened on and after 9 February 2023.
  1. [141]
    Secondly, Mr Satterly's own evidence does not persuade me of his claim.  In his oral evidence in chief, Mr Satterly primarily attributes his conduct on 9 February 2023 at the Browns Plains bus station, namely, his conduct towards the female Bus Operator and his comments to the NCC Operator about the female Bus Operator, on the stress and anxiety from which he was suffering arising out of the earlier accident in Queen Street when the bus he was driving collided with the parked white utility vehicle.  However, on Mr Satterly's evidence in cross-examination, the accident was minor in that he stated he '…clipped' the front of the white utility vehicle and that: 'I got out. I checked. There was no damage. I left.'[142]In fact, having regard to the CCTV evidence that forms part of Exhibit 13, on 9 February 2023, during the period of time between Mr Satterly parking his bus at the Browns Plains bus station, and up to the time the female bus Operator approached his bus, from 18:46:41 to 18:48:52, Mr Satterly was watching something on his mobile phone; and at about 18:47:39 and 18:48:01, he can be heard laughing at what he was watching. At least to the extent of that CCTV evidence, Mr Satterly did not show any physical signs of anxiety arising from the earlier collision.
  1. [142]
    Mr Satterly gave no evidence that on 9 February 2023, when he was at the Browns Plains bus station, his anxiety was high because of any pre-existing psychiatric illness or injury.
  1. [143]
    Further, as stated earlier, Mr Satterly, in his evidence in chief, did not deal with his other impugned conduct on 13 February 2023 towards the female Bus Operator in the Garden City depot lunch room, and he did not address his correspondence to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March and 10 April 2023.
  1. [144]
    Thirdly, the medical evidence does not support Mr Satterly's claim.
  1. [145]
    Assuming (without deciding) that Mr Satterly's employment with the Council had a causal connection with his pre-existing condition of depression and anxious distress or PTSD as diagnosed by Dr Mahapatra (that is, Mr Satterly's psychiatric condition that existed prior to 9 February 2023), there is no expert medical evidence from Dr Mahapatra, Dr Garg or Dr Nothling that supports Mr Satterly's contention that, as at 9 February 2023, he was suffering from a psychiatric injury or illness the manifestation of which was the conduct in which he engaged on and after 9 February 2023 and for which he was dismissed.  The evidence in Dr Garg's report dated 19 December 2022 is that it was Mr Satterly's personality that drove his behaviours prior to December 2022, being behaviours that resulted in the Council directing Mr Satterly to be examined by Dr Garg.
  1. [146]
    Fourthly, there are other discrete reasons why I do not accept this particular claim by Mr Satterly.
  1. [147]
    One, while Dr Nothling opined that in respect of Mr Satterly's 2023 workers' compensation application, he did suffer a work-related condition, namely an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, that was a '… primary condition' which was '… not an aggravation of a pre-existing condition.'[143]More to the point, Mr Satterly's 2023 workers' compensation application was pressed on the basis that the events of 9 and 13 February 2023 were the cause of his claimed 'mental illness' as set out in his application. There was no claim made by Mr Satterly, as part of his 2023 workers' compensation application, that he had any psychiatric or psychological condition prior to 9 February 2023 that was aggravated by the events of 9 or 13 February 2023, and that the aggravation of his condition had some causal connection with his conduct toward the female Bus Operator or the NCC Operator on or after that date.
  1. [148]
    Two, Mr Satterly never made the claim to Ms Lenz, following her correspondence to him dated 23 May 2023 and up to the date that he was dismissed, that he engaged in the conduct (the subject of the six allegations of misconduct made by the Council against him) as a consequence of any mental illness suffered by him. As set out earlier in these reasons, Mr Satterly, during the disciplinary process, did not respond to any of the precise allegations of misconduct made against him. The substantive case made by Mr Satterly to Ms Lenz, following her letter to him dated 23 May 2023, was that Ms Lenz was trying to terminate his employment in contravention of s 232B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003following on from him making his workers' compensation application on 12 March 2023.
  1. [149]
    Three, the work capacity certificate issued by Dr Mahapatra on 11 March 2023 does not support Mr Satterly's claim.By that certificate, Dr Mahapatra certified:
  • that while Mr Satterly, between 11 March 2023 and 11 June 2023, was to be treated with the anti-depressant drug Pristiq, his injury did not prevent him returning to pre-injury duties; 
  • that the medication he prescribed for Mr Satterly would not '… impede safe work, travel or cognitive function'; and
  • that Mr Satterly's '…cognition/psychosocial functioning' was affected by his injury in respect of which he needed a '…supportive workplace.'[144]
  1. [150]
    This work capacity certificate issued by Dr Mahapatra, following his examination of Mr Satterly on 11 March 2023, is not evidence that persuades me of Mr Satterly's claim that his impugned conduct was attributable to a psychiatric illness from which he was suffering. Dr Mahapatra's work capacity certificate does not tend to prove that any conduct in which Mr Satterly engaged on 9 and 13 February 2023 had a causal link with a psychiatric illness from which he suffered. While both Dr Garg and Dr Mahapatra recommended that the Council provide various forms of support for Mr Satterly at work, that is a long way short of any persuasive medical evidence that tends to prove Mr Satterly's impugned conduct was as a consequence of any psychiatric illness from which he suffered. 
  1. [151]
    For all these reasons,  I do not accept Mr Satterly's submission that his impugned conduct was specifically attributable to any mental illness from which he was suffering. There is no medical evidence to support that submission.
  1. [152]
    Further, while Ms Lenz' evidence in cross-examination was that she was aware of Mr Satterly's mental health episodes over a long period of time,[145]Mr Satterly never made the claim to her, prior to her decision to terminate his employment, that he suffered from a mental illness that resulted in him engaging in the conduct the subject of the six allegations of misconduct.
  1. [153]
    As a consequence, the submission that Ms Lenz failed to consider Mr Satterly's (present) claim, that his conduct was attributable to a psychiatric illness from which he suffered, is not meritorious.

What actuated Ms Lenz to make the decision to dismiss Mr Satterly?

  1. [154]
    Having regard to Ms Lenz' correspondence to Mr Satterly dated 23 May 2023, 28 August 2023 and 15 September 2023 (as referred to earlier in these reasons) it is clear that Ms Lenz concluded that, in respect of the six substantiated allegations made against Mr Satterly, each of those substantiated allegations amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr Satterly.
  1. [155]
    Further, as also set out earlier in these reasons, in paragraph 7 of her letter dated 15 September 2023, advising Mr Satterly of her reasons to terminate his employment, Ms Lenz stated that:
  • her decision to terminate his employment was due to her view that the six allegations had been substantiated; and
  • while Mr Satterly offered no rebuttal, explanation or excuse for the events described in the first to fifth allegations and although he made some reference to the correspondence and statements referred to in the sixth allegation, he offered '… no specific reason why such matters should not be treated as very serious misconduct.'[146]
  1. [156]
    Mr Satterly submits, on the one hand, that he '…has a BCC IME report that specifically attributed his actions to a mental illness injury' and that he was Satterly v Brisbane City Council [2025] QIRC 97discriminated against due to his mental illness.[147]I assume, by how this submission is phrased, that Mr Satterly is claiming that Ms Lenz ignored his claim that his impugned conduct was caused by his mental illness. The difficulty with that submission is that Mr Satterly never made such a claim to Ms Lenz during the disciplinary process.
  1. [157]
    The evidence is that Mr Satterly sent eight emails to Ms Lenz in response to Ms Lenz' letter dated 23 May 2023.  Again, as I have set out earlier, by Mr Satterly's responses:
  • he did not directly respond to each of the six allegations of misconduct made against him by Ms Lenz;
  • he did not claim his alleged conduct, the subject of the six allegations of misconduct made against him by Ms Lenz, was specifically attributable to his mental illness injury; and
  • he made the precise claim to Ms Lenz that because he had a mental illness injury that was compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act 2003 (said to be an injury from three related workers' compensation claims from 2021 to 2023),[148]then pursuant to s 232B of the Workers' Compensation Act 2003, the Council could not dismiss him.  
  1. [158]
    Ms Lenz was cross-examined about her reasons for making her decision to dismiss Mr Satterly:

Did you take into consideration his previous mental illness?‑‑‑I took into consideration the matters that were listed in my affidavit, which was a range of material. The only thing that I was briefed on in relation to mental illness was a memo associated with the most recent independentical – independent medical examination, which summarised his fitness to return to the workplace under certain conditions.

And upon watching the CCTV footage at Browns Plains, did it strike you that he may be having another episode related to the mental illness?‑‑‑Not particularly. I saw an exchange between two people and – – –

So you took it at face value – – –?‑‑‑– – – and one person was pretty cranky.

…

Yes. Were you aware that Mr Satterly was never interviewed by his manager in relation to this incident?‑‑‑No.

That it was escalated straight up the line and a “show cause” issued. There was no “please explain” issued?‑‑‑I was aware of the material which I was briefed with, which is in my evidence so there was no – no, I wasn’t given a transcript or anything of any kind of interview with Mr Satterly.

…

Would you consider that your information was incomplete?‑‑‑No.

In lieu of the fact that his previous mental condition wasn’t taken into consideration?‑‑‑I was briefed in relation to the last independent medical examination of Mr Satterly and so that from my perspective was sufficient. 

Were you aware that he had an ongoing – with several episodes over a long period of time?‑‑‑Yes. 

You were made aware of that?‑‑‑In – in the terms – in the context, I suppose, of that latest review it was – it referenced that there were – was a historic condition there, yes. I don’t know a lot of detail about it, though.

No. And how were you approached to conduct this review?‑‑‑I can’t remember the person but I do – it was because there were some issues I think in relation to Mr Satterly and being unhappy with some of the people that had previously been – had dealings with him in Transport for Brisbane, and so I was asked by someone in HR to be the delegate in the matter because I had no prior dealings in the matter.

So you were unaware of his history?‑‑‑Correct.

In the interests of fairness don’t you think that perhaps his history should’ve been taken into consideration?‑‑‑I think the things that I saw seemed relevant to the particular conduct that I was looking at that I had to make a decision in relation to, so on that basis it felt sufficient from my point of view.[149]

  1. [159]
    I find that the reason Ms Lenz made the decision to terminate Mr Satterly's employment was because of the conduct in which he engaged which she found to be misconduct and not for any other reason. This is for two reasons.
  1. [160]
    First, I accept Ms Lenz' evidence as genuine. Ms Lenz evidence was that the reasons for her decision to terminate Mr Satterly's employment was her conclusion that he had engaged in six acts of misconduct, as alleged against him, and that his behaviour was inconsistent with the continuation of his employment by the Council.  In addition, there was no evidence Ms Lenz gave in cross-examination that caused me to doubt the veracity of her evidence about why she made the decision to terminate Mr Satterly's employment. Ms Lenz did not waiver in her evidence about why she made the decision to dismiss Mr Satterly and her evidence about why she made that decision is consistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence of the disciplinary process between 23 May 2023 and 15 September 2023.
  1. [161]
    Secondly, in the course of the disciplinary process, at no point did Mr Satterly make the case to Ms Lenz, supported by medical evidence, that the conduct in which he allegedly engaged were episodes which had a causal link or connection with any mental illness from which he suffered.
  1. [162]
    For all these reasons, I find that what actuated Ms Lenz to make the decision to dismiss Mr Satterly was his substantiated conduct that Ms Lenz found was misconduct. Ms Lenz did not dismiss Mr Satterly because he had a mental illness or because his conduct was a manifestation of any mental illness from which he suffered. Indeed, that was never a claim made by Mr Satterly to Ms Lenz and there is no evidence before the Commission which tends to prove Mr Satterly's present claim that his impugned conduct was attributable to a psychiatric illness from which he was suffering.
  1. [163]
    On the evidence before me, the only conclusion that is open on the balance of probabilities is that Mr Satterly intentionally and knowingly engaged in the conduct the subject of the six substantiated allegations of misconduct as found by Ms Lenz.

Was Mr Satterly's dismissal proportionate to the misconduct of which he was found to have engaged?

  1. [164]
    Mr Satterly alternatively submits that the decision to terminate his employment was harsh due to Ms Lenz '… targeting him for minor procedural infractions that did not warrant any disciplinary action at the time.'[150]
  1. [165]
    The Council relevantly submitted:
  1. It is submitted there is no question the conduct the subject of allegation 4, 5 and 6 occurred as alleged and is properly characterised as misconduct.
  1. It is submitted that taking any of allegations 4, 5 or 6 in isolation could have warranted dismissal of the Applicant for misconduct.
  1. It is conceded that the allegations 1, 2 and 3 would not warrant termination on their own, or combined with each other.

When may the Council take disciplinary action against an employee?

  1. [166]
    Section 194 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010provides:

194 Disciplinary action against council employees

  1. (1)
    The chief executive officer may take disciplinary action against a council employee.
  1. (2)
    A regulation may prescribe –

(a) when disciplinary action may be taken against a council employee; and

(b) the types of disciplinary action that may be taken against a council employee.

  1. [167]
    Chapter 8 ('Administration'), pt 3 ('Council Employees'), div 1 ('Disciplinary action against council employees') of  the City of Brisbane Regulation 2012 provides:

256  What div 1 is about

This division prescribes, for section 194(2) of the Act, when the chief executive officer may take, and the types of, disciplinary action.

257  When disciplinary action may be taken

The chief executive officer may take disciplinary action against a council employee if the chief executive officer is satisfied the employee has –

  1. (a)
    failed to perform their responsibilities under the Act; or
  1. (b)
    failed to perform a responsibility under the Act in accordance with the local government principles; or
  1. (c)
    taken action under the Act in a way that is not consistent with the local government principles.

258  Types of disciplinary action

  1. (1)
    The disciplinary action taken by the chief executive officer against a council employee may be 1 or more of the following –
  1. (a)
    dismissal;

…

  1. [168]
    Section 15 of City of Brisbane Act 2010provides:

15 Responsibilities of council employees

 (1) All employees of the council have the following responsibilities–

  (a) implementing the policies and priorities of the council in a way that promotes–

  (i) the effective, efficient and economical management of public resources; and

   (ii) excellence in service delivery; and

   (iii) continual improvement;

  (b) carrying out their duties in a way that ensures the council–

   (i) discharges its responsibilities under this Act; and

   (ii) complies with all laws that apply to the council; and

   (iii) achieves its corporate plan;

  (c) providing sound and impartial advice to the council;

  (d) carrying out their duties impartially and with integrity;

  (e) ensuring their personal conduct does not reflect adversely on the reputation of the council;

  (f) improving all aspects of their work performance;

  (g) observing all laws relating to their employment;

  (h) observing the ethics principles under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994, section 4;

  1. complying with a code of conduct under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994.
  1. [169]
    Section 4 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010provides:

4 Local government principles underpin this Act

(1) To ensure the system of local government in Brisbane is accountable, effective, efficient and sustainable, Parliament requires–

(a) anyone who is performing a responsibility under this Act to do so in accordance with the local government principles; and

(b) any action that is taken under this Act to be taken in a way that–

(i) is consistent with the local government principles; and

(ii) provides results that are consistent with the local government principles, in as far as the results are within the control of the person who is taking the action.

(2)  The local government principles are–

  1. (a)
    transparent and effective processes, and decision-making in the public interest; and

(b)  sustainable development and management of assets and infrastructure, and delivery of effective services; and

(c)  democratic representation, social inclusion and meaningful community engagement; and

  1. (d)
    good governance of, and by, local government; and

(e)  ethical and legal behaviour of councillors, council employees and councillor advisors.

  1. [170]
    By s 15(1)(i) of the City of Brisbane Act 2010, Mr Satterly had the responsibility to comply with the Code. The Code clearly prescribed certain aspects of Mr Satterly's ethical and legal behaviour as an employee of the Council. 
  1. [171]
    As referred to earlier, the Code relevantly provides that a Council employee:
  • must treat each other with trust, respect, honesty, fairness, sensitivity and dignity;
  • must not behave toward any other person in a way that could be perceived as intimidating, overbearing or as workplace bullying; and
  • must demonstrate behaviour in the workplace which assures work is performed in a safe and effective manner.
  1. [172]
    Furthermore, the Code expressly dealt with the circumstances where a Council employee breaches the Code. Clause 4.5 of the Code provides:

A breach of the Code of Conduct damages business, public and work relationships. Any act or lack of action that contravenes the Code may be a breach of Council ordinances and local laws. Suspected breaches will be treated individually, and all relevant circumstances will be taken into account.

Suspected breaches by employees will be managed in line with the Managing poor performance and misconduct procedure (HRP 130). Depending on the severity of the breach, formal disciplinary action may be taken in accordance with the City of Brisbane Act 2010(Qld) and Council ordinances and local laws.[151]

When does an employee of the Council engage in misconduct?

  1. [173]
    The Council's Misconduct Procedure relevantly provides:

Misconduct – there are three different types of misconduct.

Misconduct - conduct that is inconsistent with the obligations of an employee under his or her employment contract.

Examples of misconduct include:

  • disgraceful or improper conduct in an official capacity.
  • disgraceful or improper conduct in a private capacity which could reflect seriously and adversely on the Council.
  • behaviour that does not satisfy a standard of behaviour expected of a Council employee (e.g. Code of Conduct).
  • refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employment contract (e.g. insubordination).
  • wilful or deliberate behaviour that is inconsistent with the continuation of the employment contract.
  • carelessness or negligence in discharge of duties.
  • working under the influence of drugs or alcohol.[152]
  1. [174]
    The general definition of 'misconduct' in the Code, as set out immediately above, reflects the general law principle of misconduct by an employee. In Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell,[153]Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ stated:[154]

[25] In Pearce v Foster, Lord Esher MR stated it to be a "rule of law" that "where a person has entered into the position of servant, if he does anything incompatible with the due or faithful discharge of his duty to his master, the latter has a right to dismiss him". In Blyth Chemicals Ltd v Bushnell, in the course of considering the position of the respondent, who was the manager of the appellant's business, Starke and Evatt JJ said:

"As manager for the appellant, the respondent was in a confidential position. And it is clear that he might be dismissed without notice or compensation if he acted in a manner incompatible with the due and faithful performance of his duty, or inconsistent with the confidential relation between himself and the appellant."

In the same case, Dixon and McTiernan JJ said:

"Conduct which in respect of important matters is incompatible with the fulfilment of an employee's duty, or involves an opposition, or conflict between his interest and his duty to his employer, or impedes the faithful performance of his obligations, or is destructive of the necessary confidence between employer and employee, is a ground of dismissal."

Was Mr Satterly's proven conduct misconduct?

  1. [175]
    Given that I have found that, as matters of fact, Mr Satterly engaged in the conduct the subject of the first to the sixth allegations of misconduct as alleged by the Council, the next question is whether any of Mr Satterly's proven conduct, in respect of each of those matters, amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Council's Misconduct Procedure for which his dismissal was proportionate disciplinary action.

The first to third allegations of misconduct

  1. [176]
    For the reasons given earlier, I have found that on 9 February 2023:
  • Mr Satterly did fail to contact the NCC after the bus he was driving collided with the white utility vehicle parked in Queen Street, and that Mr Satterly's failure to contact the NCC, in those circumstances, was in contravention of the Handbook;
  • following Mr Satterly returning to the driver seat of the bus after having alighted from the bus after the collision, Mr Satterly failed to wear his seatbelt when he subsequently drove the bus and, in those circumstances, Mr Satterly acted in breach of the Handbook by being in breach of s 264 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management–Road Rules) Regulation 2009; and
  • on four occasions, Mr Satterly failed to follow his run print in breach of the Handbook.
  1. [177]
    Mr Satterly's conduct the subject of these three matters probably does fall within the definition of 'misconduct' in the Council's Misconduct Procedure. This is because this conduct by Mr Satterly involves him being careless in the discharge of his duties.
  1. [178]
    However, I cannot form the conclusion that, either on their own or collectively, these three substantiated allegations of misconduct are serious enough so as to warrant Mr Satterly's dismissal on notice. Mr Satterly should have immediately reported to the NCC the collision between the bus he was driving and the utility vehicle parked near bus stop 76 on Queen Street. However, on the evidence before me, this was a one off incident of neglect.
  1. [179]
    In relation to the failure by Mr Satterly to fasten his seatbelt, when getting back on the bus after the collision, this was a short lapse on one occasion.
  1. [180]
    Finally, Mr Satterly's failure to follow the run print on 9 February 2023 again, while careless, was only on four occasions.
  1. [181]
    For these reasons, I accept the Council's submission that Mr Satterly's proven conduct in relation to the first, second and third allegations of misconduct would not warrant his dismissal.
  1. [182]
    However, aspects of Mr Satterly's substantiated conduct in respect of the fourth, fifth and sixth allegations of misconduct are far more serious.

The fourth allegation of misconduct

  1. [183]
    In cross-examination, Mr Satterly denied that he was rude, dismissive and disrespectful of the female Bus Operator.[155]
  1. [184]
    On my view of the evidence, the female Bus Operator was calmly making a legitimate inquiry of Mr Satterly as to why he parked his bus where he did, given the disruption he caused to the other bus that attempted to park at the Browns Plains bus station. Mr Satterly's response to the female Bus Operator was not one that a reasonable person would expect from a work colleague of the female Bus Operator.
  1. [185]
    By his sarcasm and swearing, and by his conduct in closing the door of his bus when the female Bus Operator was standing close to the door, Mr Satterly's conduct was petulant. However, relevantly to the matters I have to decide, it was disrespectful of the female Bus Operator. There was no justification for this conduct by Mr Satterly.
  1. [186]
    I find that by his conduct in respect of this allegation, Mr Satterly did engage in misconduct in that he deliberately contravened sub-cl 4.1.2.1 of the Code in that he did not treat the female Bus Operator with respect.

The fifth allegation of misconduct

The conduct when speaking to the NCC Operator on 9 February 2023 about the female Bus Operator

  1. [187]
    Mr Satterly's conduct when speaking to the NCC Operator on 9 February 2023, in making the comments he made about the female Bus Operator, and in the manner he made the comments by swearing, raising his voice and then yelling, was disrespectful of the NCC Operator. The NCC Operator was merely making an inquiry of Mr Satterly as to why he had parked his bus at the Browns Plains bus station where he did.  There was no reason for Mr Satterly to speak to the NCC Operator in the way he did. There was no reason for Mr Satterly to swear and raise his voice and yell.
  1. [188]
    I find that by his conduct in respect of this part of the fifth allegation, Mr Satterly did engage in misconduct in that he deliberately contravened sub-cl 4.1.2.1 of the Code in that he did not treat the NCC Operator with respect.

The conduct toward the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023

  1. [189]
    Mr Satterly's subsequent conduct towards the female Bus Operator on 13 February 2023, in the lunch room at the Garden City depot, as proven by exhibit 16, namely the audio recording of Mr Satterly's first interaction with the female Bus Operator on that day, proves that he engaged in misconduct towards her.
  1. [190]
    I have listened to the first lunch room recording a number of times. Unmistakenly, the language and tone that Mr Satterly used towards the female Bus Operator was intimidating and aggressive. It is obvious that Mr Satterly engaged in that conduct towards her because, in his view, she had '…dobbed' him in about where he parked his bus at the Browns Plains bus station on 9 February 2023.  The obvious purpose of his intimidating and aggressive conduct towards the female Bus Driver was to pressure her into not 'dobbing' him in again. There was no justification for this conduct by Mr Satterly.
  1. [191]
    I find that this conduct by Mr Satterly was in breach of sub-cl 4.1.2.1 of the Code in that he deliberately did not treat the female Bus Operator with respect.  Mr Satterly's conduct towards the female Bus Operator, in the lunch room at the Garden City bus depot on the first occasion on 13 February 2023, was misconduct. Furthermore, I find that it was misconduct of a serious nature given Mr Satterly's intimidating and aggressive language and tone as clearly proven by the audio recording.

The sixth allegation of misconduct

  1. [192]
    In my view, by referring to Mr Jensen as a '… vindictive prick' and as a '… massive cunt' in correspondence he authored to a senior employee of the Council, namely Ms Abeydeera, Mr Satterly was engaging in misconduct within the meaning of the Council's Misconduct Procedure. This is because Mr Satterly failed to treat Mr Jensen with respect and, in doing so, he engaged in behaviour that did not satisfy a standard of behaviour expected of a Council employee as set out in sub-cl 4.1.2.1 of the Code.
  1. [193]
    The Council did not summarily terminate Mr Satterly's employment for serious misconduct.[156]However, in my view, by referring to Mr Jensen as a '… vindictive prick' and as a '… massive cunt' in correspondence he authored to Ms Abeydeera, Mr Satterly engaged in misconduct that was serious in nature.
  1. [194]
    There are a number of reasons why I form the view that this misconduct by Mr Satterly was serious in nature.
  1. [195]
    First, it cannot be said that Mr Satterly's reference to Mr Jensen, in that manner, was out of character.[157]As referred to earlier in these reasons, on 3 November 2022 Mr Satterly, on his own admission, verbally described Mr Jensen in that manner to the police officers who attended his home to conduct a welfare check of him.[158]
  1. [196]
    Other evidence points to this conduct of Mr Satterly not being out of character.  Mr Satterly wrote to Ms Abeydeera's predecessor, Mr Geoffrey Beck, on 6 November 2022.  This letter was styled as a complaint about, amongst other matters, Mr Satterly's allegation that Mr Jensen sent the police to his home on 3 November 2022 to intimidate him. In that letter, Mr Satterly also stated to Mr Beck that he told the police that Mr Jensen was a '…vindictive prick' and a '…massive cunt' and that the police needed to write that in their notes.[159]
  1. [197]
    Secondly, it cannot be said that Mr Satterly's reference to Mr Jensen as a '…vindictive prick' and as a '… massive cunt' in his correspondence to Ms Abeydeera was made  under pressure or in the heat of the moment.[160]It is self-evident, from the length and text of the letters, that Mr Satterly clearly thought about what he was writing and made deliberate choices as to the words he used.
  1. [198]
    Mr Satterly gave an explanation for his use of those phrases to describe Mr Jensen in the letter he sent to Ms Abeydeera on 23 March 2023. Mr Satterly's evidence in cross-examination (set out below) was that by his reference to Mr Jensen in those terms, he was merely quoting what he had earlier said to the police. In my view, this is not a plausible explanation. This is because:
  • Mr Satterly did not give any evidence as to why it was necessary for him, in making the point he wanted to make in his letter to Ms Abeydeera about the police visit to his house on 3 November 2022, to precisely quote the phrases he used to describe Mr Jensen to the police; and
  • in his second letter to Ms Abeydeera sent on 10 April 2023, Mr Satterly stated:

My "massive cunt" remark regarding Colin Jensen still stands. 

  1. [199]
    Further, given the text he used in his second letter to Ms Abeydeera (set out immediately above), Mr Satterly's reference to Mr Jensen as a '…massive cunt' cannot be plausibly explained by him stating he was just quoting what he had earlier said to the police.
  1. [200]
    Thirdly, Mr Satterly has not expressed any remorse about his conduct.[161]Mr Satterly was cross-examined about his reference to Mr Jensen, in his letters to Ms Abeydeera, as a '…massive cunt'. The transcript records:

Do you think it’s okay to call someone a massive cunt?‑‑‑Oh, you won’t let me finish. The police said to me – can you let me finish? The police said to me, “What are you feeling right now? What’s your statement?” I said, “This is completely unacceptable that Colin Jensen would send the police to my home at midnight.” And I said – he said – he goes, the policeman said, “You can swear if you want” and I said, “Mate, he’s a massive cunt and he’s a vindictive prick to send the police.” It was – it was a quote to the police. It was on – on the record to the police.

All right. So you just – sorry, bear with me a moment, Deputy President. With respect to your comment about Colin Jensen you restate that in your second letter to Ms Abeydeera. Do you see that at the bottom of the letter there?‑‑‑Yeah.

You’re calling that again?‑‑‑Yeah.

…

Now, you agree, don’t you, that the manner in which you’ve communicated with Ms Samantha Abeydeera on the 23rd of March and the 10th of April 2023 is not respectful?‑‑‑It’s in quotes. I’m quoting.

I’m just putting it to you – – –?‑‑‑I’m not calling anyone, like, I’m not calling her that. I’m putting it in quotes, this is what I – this is what was said. 

And you agree that it’s not consistent, this form of communication that you’ve engaged in here with the – – –?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth of what happened.

Just wait for the question – – –?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth. I’m telling the truth. 

Wait for the question. It’s not consistent with the expectations of your employer, is it?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth.

Is that a yes?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth. 

Do you agree it’s not the expected – – –?‑‑‑No, I don’t.

You don’t agree?‑‑‑Yeah, I’m telling the truth.

You think that form of – – –?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth.

Listen to the question, Mr Satterly?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth of what happened.

You think this communication is an acceptable form for an employee of Brisbane City Council?

Do you agree with that?‑‑‑I’m telling the truth. This is – this is what I’m doing.

Okay. It’s a yes or no answer, Mr Satterly. Just listen really carefully?‑‑‑Yeah.

I’m going to ask you one more time. Do you think this form of communication is acceptable to you?‑‑‑It’s the truth. It’s what happened.

All right. Now, do you accept that that form of communication is in breach of the code of conduct?‑‑‑The truth? No.[162]

  1. [201]
    Mr Satterly was unrepentant about his use of that phrase to describe Mr Jensen to Ms Abeydeera. Mr Satterly's evidence is that he was completely justified, when writing to Ms Abeydeera, to refer to Mr Jensen as a '…massive cunt.' At no point in time, prior to or during these proceedings, did Mr Satterly express any regret about that conduct or express the view that he had gained any insight about his use of that offensive and obscene language to describe Mr Jensen to another Council employee.
  1. [202]
    Fourthly, the circumstances in which Mr Satterly used this language are not those recognised in the authorities where the use of objectionable language may not amount to misconduct; namely, where such language is the common standard in a particular workplace.[163]Mr Satterly wrote to Ms Abeydeera of his own volition and in doing so he unilaterally referred to Mr Jensen as a '…vindictive prick' and as a '…massive cunt'.
  1. [203]
    Fifthly, for the reasons I have given earlier, there is no evidence that proves, on the balance of probabilities, that at the time Mr Satterly wrote these letters he was suffering from a psychiatric condition or illness which resulted in him not appreciating what he was writing.
  1. [204]
    For these reasons, Mr Satterly's correspondence to Ms Abeydeera sent on 23 March 2023 and on 10 April 2023, in which he referred to Mr Jensen as a '…vindictive prick' and as a '…massive cunt', was misconduct of a serious nature which, on its own, justified the Council terminating Mr Satterly's employment on notice. This is because that conduct concerned another Council employee, Mr Jensen, and by the use of that offensive and obscene language in respect of Mr Jensen, Mr Satterly failed to treat Mr Jensen with respect.  There was no justification for Mr Satterly to use such offensive and obscene language in his letters to Ms Abeydeera when referring to Mr Jensen. In his evidence to this Commission, Mr Satterly offered no plausible justification for his use of such offensive and obscene language.
  1. [205]
    Notwithstanding the above, in my view, the particular allegations of misconduct I have found to be substantiated that formed part of the fourth, fifth and sixth allegations, amounted to a course of misconduct by Mr Satterly which provided a clear justification for the Council to terminate Mr Satterly's employment on notice.
  1. [206]
    First, Mr Satterly's conduct towards the female Bus Operator on 9 February 2023 at the Browns Plains bus station was disrespectful of her and was misconduct. There was no justification for Mr Satterly to respond to the female Bus Operator in the way he did.
  1. [207]
    Secondly, Mr Satterly's conduct towards the NCC Operator on 9 February 2023 was disrespectful of him and was misconduct. There was no justification for Mr Satterly to respond to the NCC Operator in the way he did.
  1. [208]
    Thirdly, Mr Satterly's conduct towards the female Bus Operator in the Garden City depot lunch room, on the first occasion on 13 February 2023, was misconduct of a serious nature in that he acted in an intimidating and aggressive manner toward her for which there was no justification.
  1. [209]
    Fourthly, the offensive and obscene language Mr Satterly used to describe Mr Jensen in his two letters to Ms Abeydeera was misconduct of a serious nature for which there was no justification.

Was Mr Satterly's dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable having regard to the matters referred to in s 320 of the IR Act ?

Was Mr Satterly notified of the reason for his dismissal?

  1. [210]
    As set out in paragraph [53] of these reasons, by her letter dated 15 September 2023, Ms Lenz notified Mr Satterly of her reasons to dismiss him.

Was Mr Satterly's dismissal related to his conduct, capacity or performance?

  1. [211]
    For the reasons I have given in paragraphs [154] to [163] of these reasons, I do not find that Mr Satterly's dismissal was related to his capacity.   
  1. [212]
    I find that Mr Satterly's dismissal related to his deliberate course of misconduct.

Was Mr Satterly warned about his conduct prior to his dismissal?

  1. [213]
    There is no evidence that Mr Satterly was warned about his conduct prior to his dismissal.
  1. [214]
    However, the uncontested evidence is that on 10 May 2022, Mr Satterly completed online training in '…Code of Conduct, Zero Harm Essentials for Workers & Our Customer Focus Vision.'[164]In cross-examination, Mr Satterly conceded that he was familiar with the Code and that he had received training in the Code.[165]
  1. [215]
    Given the nature of the misconduct in which Mr Satterly engaged, as I have found in respect of the fourth, fifth and sixth allegations of misconduct, particularly the misconduct in which he engaged by referring to Mr Jensen in his written correspondence to Ms Abeydeera as a '…vindictive prick' and as a '…massive cunt', the failure to specifically warn Mr Satterly about engaging in such conduct prior to his dismissal does not render his dismissal unjust.
  1. [216]
    This is because:
  • any reasonable adult worker, who knew they were bound by a code of conduct that required them to treat other employees with respect, would know it would be misconduct, by way of unilateral and formal correspondence directly connected with their employment, to deliberately refer to another employee as a '…vindictive prick and, or in the alternative, as a '…massive cunt'; and
  • Mr Satterly should be taken to have known, from his training in the Code, that such conduct was contrary to his obligations under sub-cl 4.1.2.1 of the Code.

Was Mr Satterly given an opportunity to respond to the claim about his conduct or performance prior to his dismissal?

  1. [217]
    For the reasons I have given in paragraphs [38] to [46] of these reasons, Mr Satterly was given an opportunity to respond to the factual allegations, namely,  that he engaged in the conduct the subject of the first to the sixth allegations of misconduct.  In fact, as recounted in my reasons above, on three occasions, Mr Satterly was given an extension of time to respond to Ms Lenz' letter dated 23 May 2023.
  1. [218]
    Mr Satterly was also given an opportunity to respond to Ms Lenz' letter dated 28 August 2023. By that letter, Ms Lenz informed Mr Satterly that, as a consequence of her decision that the six allegations of misconduct were substantiated, she was considering taking disciplinary action against him, being that he '… should anticipate that termination of your employment on the grounds set out in Schedule A is a likely outcome, depending on your submissions.'[166]
  1. [219]
    Mr Satterly's responses are in evidence. As submitted by the Council, Mr Satterly never contended that he could not properly respond because he was mentally unwell.[167]On the evidence to which I have referred in paragraphs [47] to [51] of these reasons, I find that Mr Satterly was given the opportunity to respond to Ms Lenz about why he should not be dismissed following her determination that the six allegations of misconduct she made against him were substantiated.

Are there other matters the Commission considers relevant?

  1. [220]
    In his principal written submissions,  Mr Satterly submitted that the investigation as conducted by Ethical Edge '…  sanitized the relevance of Matthew Satterly's mental illness claims' and that  '… HR and Ethical Standards controlled what information that was available to Anne Lenz.'[168]     
  1. [221]
    In his written submissions in reply filed on 18 September 2024, Mr Satterly submitted:
  1. The investigation omitted in its findings and failed to report Mr. Satterley's long battle with his mental illness. This omission is in breach of the respondents Code of Conduct Section 5.1 B Standards of conduct (v) influences on decision making. Which states

You must not deliberately mislead decision makers by providing them with false, biased, incomplete or inaccurate information.

This incomplete report formed the basis for Ms Anne Lenz to draw unreasonable conclusions from a very bias view of the events of 9 February 2023.

  1. [222]
    The terms of reference given to Ethical Edge by the Council were for it to undertake a desktop review of the conduct of Mr Satterly, in respect of incidents in the workplace on 9 and 13 February 2023, and to recommend to the Council as to whether there had been any demonstrated breaches of the Code by Mr Satterly which would require a formal disciplinary process.[169]The terms of reference provided to Ethical Edge did not require it to enquire into the state of Mr Satterly's mental health. As a consequence, the failure of Ethical Edge to enquire into Mr Satterly's mental health cannot render Mr Satterly's dismissal unfair.
  1. [223]
    In any event, the decision-maker about the disciplinary process undertaken in respect of Mr Satterly was Ms Lenz, not Ethical Edge. Mr Satterly had every opportunity to put before Ms Lenz, as part of the disciplinary process, any claim and supporting evidence that he wanted, including a claim and supporting evidence that he was suffering from a mental illness which, in any relevant way, had a causal connection with his impugned conduct.
  1. [224]
    On the evidence before me, and for the reasons I have given earlier, I am satisfied that Ms Lenz' own conclusions about the facts of Mr Satterly's conduct, and her conclusions that he had engaged in misconduct, were properly made. There is no evidence before me that tends to prove that at the time Mr Satterly engaged in the conduct the subject of the six substantiated allegations of misconduct as found by Ms Lenz, he was suffering from a psychiatric injury or illness that had any causal connection or link with his impugned conduct.
  1. [225]
    For these reasons, this submission is rejected.
  1. [226]
    In his written submissions in reply, Mr Satterly submitted:
  1. The investigation into his alleged behaviour was conducted by a third party engaged by the respondent in breach of all agreements contained within the EBA and without the knowledge of the Applicant's union, The Rail, Tram and Bus Union (Queensland Branch).
  1. [227]
    Mr Satterly does not cite the name of the applicable certified agreement and does not cite any particular provision of any such applicable certified agreement that gives rise to this contention (although in the hearing he referred to '…section 10' of '…the EBA.')[170]
  1. [228]
    At the time Ethical Edge was appointed to conduct the review of Mr Satterly's conduct on 9 and 13 February 2013, namely, on 28 February 2023, the applicable certified agreement was the Brisbane City Council Certified Agreement 2018 (EBA9) ('the 2018 agreement'). Schedule 10 of the 2018 agreement dealt with Passenger Services Employees, including Bus Operators.  I have been unable to locate any provision in the main body of the 2018 agreement, or in sch 10 to the 2018 agreement, that provides for that as asserted by Mr Satterly, namely, that the engagement of Ethical Edge by the Council was in breach of the 2018 agreement or that the engagement of Ethical Edge by the Council could only be done with the knowledge of his union.
  1. [229]
    In any event, Mr Satterly does not explain how it would be the case that even if there were such provisions in any applicable certified agreement, and the Council acted in breach of them, those facts alone could render his dismissal unfair.  
  1. [230]
    For these reasons, this submission is rejected.

Conclusion

  1. [231]
    The primary issue I had to determine was whether Mr Satterly's dismissal was harsh unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [232]
    Mr Satterly made a number of submissions which alleged that the bus depot from which he operated, and where at one point in time he had been a union delegate, had been mismanaged. Mr Satterly then made further assertions about the industrial relations and workplace health and safety implications for such alleged mismanagement. None of those issues were relevant to the primary issue I had to determine. The evidence of Mr Meikle and Ms Reihana went to such assertions. As a consequence, their evidence, as submitted by the Council, was entirely irrelevant.
  1. [233]
    Mr Satterly claimed that the conduct in which he engaged was attributable to his mental illness that was caused by the Council arising out of the alleged mismanagement which he asserted. For the reasons I have given, I have found that Mr Satterly's misconduct was not as a consequence of any psychiatric illness or condition from which he had suffered.
  1. [234]
    Mr Satterly's misconduct included misconduct that was serious in nature. It was misconduct that justified the Council dismissing him on notice.
  1. [235]
    Having regard to the matters referred to in s 320 of the IR Act, there is nothing on the facts that satisfies me that Mr Satterly's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [236]
    For the reasons I have given, Mr Satterly's dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [237]
    Mr Satterly's application for reinstatement is dismissed.

Order

  1. [238]
    I make the following Order:
  1. Pursuant to s 319(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Applicant's application for reinstatement, filed on 19 September 2023, is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-20', pages 255-257 of the Hearing Bundle ('HB').

[2] Mr Satterly's written submissions filed on 5 August 2024 ('Mr Satterly's submissions'), para. 92.

[3] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 93.

[4] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 94.

[5] The submissions of the Brisbane City Council filed on 28 August 2024 ('the Council's submissions'), para. 5.

[6] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 145 of the HB.

[7] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 145 of the HB.

[8] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 145-146 of the HB.

[9] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 146 of the HB.

[10] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 146-148 of the HB.

[11] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 148 to 149 of the HB.

[12] Exhibit 1.

[13] Exhibit 2.

[14] T 1-53 to T 1-54.

[15] Exhibit 4.

[16] Exhibit 6, pages 919 and 921 of the HB.

[17] Exhibit 9. It seems to be the case from Ms Baird's uncontested evidence, that this video was sent to Mr Craig Jensen, Mr Satterly's then Team Leader, on 14 June 2021: Exhibit 10, para. 14, page 264 of the HB.

[18] Exhibit 13.

[19] Exhibit 13.

[20] Exhibit 14.

[21] Exhibit 15.

[22] Exhibit 16.

[23] Exhibit 17.

[24] Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410, 465 (McHugh and Gummow JJ).

[25] Ibid.

[26] See, eg. Shorten v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd [1996] AIRC 2023; (1996) 70 IR 360, 370 (Vice President Ross).

[27] Gold Coast District Health Service v Walker [2001] ICQ 62; (2001) 168 QGIG 258, 259 (President Hall).

[28] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-5', page 755 of the HB.

[29] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-5', page 781 of the HB.

[30] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-5', page 835 of the HB.

[31] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-5', page 770 of the HB.

[32] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-5', page 803 of the HB.

[33] T 1-17, ll 36-47.

[34] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-4', page 734 of the HB.

[35] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-4', page 738 of the HB. My emphasis.

[36] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-4', page 748 of the HB. My emphasis.

[37] T 1-22, ll 38-39.

[38] Exhibit 4, pages 906-907 of the HB.

[39] Exhibit 4, pages 910-911 of the HB.

[40] T 1-66, l 7 to T 1-71, l 14.

[41] Exhibit 10, paras. 55-57, page 266 of the HB and Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 141 of the HB.

[42] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-1', page 120 of the HB.

[43] Exhibit 6, page 922 of the HB.

[44] Exhibit 6, page 923 of the HB.

[45] Exhibit 6, pages 918-921 of the HB.

[46] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-1', pages 119-130 of the HB.

[47] Exhibit 11, paras. 5-8, page 113 of the HB.

[48] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 141 of the HB.

[49] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 141-160 of the HB.

[50] Exhibit 11, exhibits 'AL-3'- 'AL-15', pages 162 to 233 of the HB.

[51] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-3' page 162 of the HB.

[52] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-4', page 164 of the HB.

[53] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-5' page 167 of HB.

[54] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-8', page 175 of HB.

[55] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-8', page 175 of HB.

[56] Being the emails sent on 14 June 2023, 16 June 2023, 24 June 2023, 3 July 2023, 6 August 2023, 14 August 2023, 21 August 2023 and 22 August 2023; Exhibit 11, exhibits 'AL-6', 'AL-7', 'AL-9', 'AL-10', 'AL-11', 'AL-12', 'AL-13' and 'AL-14', pages 170, 172, 177, 180, 182-183, 185, 188-189  and 191 of the HB.

[57] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 27.

[58] T 1-52, ll 8-19.

[59] See Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-7', page 172, fourth paragraph, of the HB.

[60] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-7', page 172 of the HB.

[61] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-8', page 175 of the HB.

[62] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-9', page 177 of the HB. Emphasis in the original.

[63] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-17', pages 237-238 of the HB.

[64] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-17', pages 237-238 of the HB.

[65] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-17', pages 239-243 of the HB.

[66] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-18', pages 245-249 of the HB.

[67] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-19', page 251 of the HB.

[68] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-19', page 251 of the HB.

[69] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-20', page 253 of the HB.

[70] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-20', pages 256-257 of the HB.

[71] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-20', page 257 of the HB.

[72] Exhibit 10, para. 90, page 269 of the HB.

[73] Exhibit 4.

[74] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 145 of the HB.

[75] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 145 of the HB.

 

[76] T 1-15, l 30.

[77] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 145 of the HB.

[78] T 1-26, l 37 to T 1-27, l 1.

[79] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 145 of the HB.

[80] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 145-146 of the HB.

[81] Exhibit 11, para. 32.

[82] T 1-19, l 36.

[83] The Council's submissions, para. 42.

[84] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 146 of the HB.

[85] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 146 of the HB.

[86] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 146 of the HB.

[87] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 146 of the HB. This is a typographical error in the description of the alleged events or incidents. The allegation concerning the NCC Operator occurred on 9 February 2023 and the allegation about Mr Satterly's conduct toward the female Bus Operator in the Garden City depot lunch room occurred on 13 February 2023. Both incidents are particularised in the part of Ms Lenz' letter setting out the evidence in support of the allegations. Mr Satterly did not submit he was prejudiced by this error in responding to Ms Lenz' letter dated 23 May 2023. Ms Lenz made express findings about both allegations in her letter to Mr Satterly dated 28 August 2023: Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-17', page 241 of the HB.

[88] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 146-148 of the HB.

[89] Exhibit 14.

[90] T 1-31, ll 19-20.

[91] T 1-33, l 39 to T 1-34, l 5.

[92] T 1-50, ll 38-47.

[93] T 1-63, ll 33-37.

[94] Mr Satterly's submissions, paras. 71-73.

[95] The Council's submissions, paras. 51-52.

[96] The Council's submissions, para. 55.

[97] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-1', page 126, section 4.3, of the HB.

[98] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-23', pages 573-574 of the HB.

[99] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-23', page 578 of the HB.

[100] As the Council did: Exhibit 11, page 126, section 4.3, of the HB.

[101] T 1-34, l 11 to T 1-35, l 38.

[102] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 148-149 of the HB.

[103] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', pages 148-149 of the HB.

[104] T 1-36, l 26 to T 1-38, l 28.

[105] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-1', page 709 of the HB, first three paragraphs.

[106] Exhibit 10, paras. 12-27, pages 263-264 of the HB.

[107] Exhibit 10, paras. 30-41, page 265 of the HB.

[108] The letter from Mr Satterly to Mr Jensen is set out at Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-19', page 536 of the HB. In that letter Mr Satterly complained about the submissions made by the Council to the Commission, at the conference on 31 October 2022, about his mental health.  Mr Satterly then relevantly stated:

I can point out in my own words that I have and will continue to talk about mental illness and suicide to anyone that may ask. I have no hesitation in talking about what I went through to anyone. I have proved this by speaking to my psychologist, my psychiatrist, the Princess Alexander [sic] Adult Acute Psychiatric Unit psychiatrist, the Ramsey Clinic psychiatrist, ambulance paramedics, police officers, the IME psychiatrist Dr Garg, and the City Workcover psychiatrist Dr Alcorn. In my discussion with Dr Alcorn, we talked about the process of defecating your pants when losing consciousness during self-harm. But this is what it is, self-harm … I quote the Response,", consisted of multiple unsuccessful attempts to commit suicide in the workplace by choking himself," Self-harm is the process of trying to feel better when depressed by harming yourself. The purpose is not to kill yourself.

[109] Exhibit 10, paras. 42-54, page 266 of the HB.

[110] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-1', page 714. Emphasis added.

[111] T 1-38, l 33.

[112] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-2', page 720 of the HB.

[113] T 1-6, ll 16-43.

[114] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 1.

[115] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 2.

[116] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 5.

[117] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 6.

[118] Mr Satterly's submissions, paras. 10-11.

[119] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 13.

[120] Mr Satterly's submissions, paras. 19.

[121] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 24.

[122] My emphasis.

[123] The Council's submissions, para. 80.

[124] The Council's submissions, para. 83.

[125] T 1-15, ll 17-20.

[126] T 1-16, ll 13-20.

[127] T 1-16, ll 26-30.

[128] T 1-16, ll 45-49.

[129] T 1-30, l 21 to T 1-31, l 20.

[130] T 1-34, ll 11-16.

[131] Exhibit 4, page 913 of the HB.

[132] Exhibit 4, page 914 of the HB.

[133] Exhibit 4, page 911, first and fourth paragraphs of the HB.

[134] Exhibit 4, page 913, paragraph number 2, of the HB.

[135] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-22', page 554 of the HB.

[136] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-22', page 557 of the HB.

[137] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-22', page 558 of the HB

[138] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-22', page 556 of the HB.

[139] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-22', page 558 of the HB.

[140] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-21', pages 541-545 of the HB.

[141] Exhibit 10, para. 54, page 266 of the HB.

[142] T 1-24, ll 4-5.

[143] Exhibit 4, page 913, paragraph number 6 a) of the HB.

[144] Exhibit 6, page 922 of the HB.

[145] T 1-67, ll 43-48.

[146] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-20', page 256 of the HB.

[147] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 94.

[148] See Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-7', page 172, fourth paragraph, of the HB.

[149] T 1-66, l 33 to T 1-68, l 16.

[150] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 92.

[151] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-4', pages 748-749 of the HB.

[152] Exhibit 12, exhibit 'AL-3', page 723. Emphasis added.

[153] [2000] HCA 64; (2000) 75 ALJR 312.

[154] Citations omitted.

[155] T 1-30, ll 25-33.

[156] For a summary of the legal principles regarding the kind of serious misconduct that will justify summary dismissal, see Mount v Dover Castle Metals Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 101, [559]-[566] (Katzmann J).

[157] Cf. Black v Gladstone Regional Council [2024] QIRC 285 ('Black'), [48]-[49] (Industrial Commissioner McLennan).

[158] On the evidence before me, it seems that Mr Satterly, in part, formed his particular views of Mr Jensen because he assumed Mr Jensen informed the Queensland Police Service of his letter sent on 3 November 2022, in which he referred to his self-harming, in response to which police officers conducted a welfare check on Mr Satterly.

[159] Exhibit 10, exhibit 'JMB-20', page 538.

[160] Cf. Black (n 157) [48].

[161] Cf. Ibid [49].

[162] T 1-39, l 23 to 1-40, l 35.

[163] See e.g Drury v BHP Refractories Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 293; (1995) 62 IR 467, 473 (Wilcox CJ).

[164] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-2', page 142, paragraph 11 of the HB.

[165] T 1-22, ll 20-26.

[166] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-17', page 237 of the HB.

[167] The Council's submissions, para. 76.

[168] Mr Satterly's submissions, para. 75.

[169] Exhibit 11, exhibit 'AL-1', page 120 of the HB.

[170] T 1-55, l 48 to T 1-56, l 10.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Satterly v Brisbane City Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Satterly v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 97

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Merrell DP

  • Date:

    01 Apr 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
Black v Gladstone Regional Council [2024] QIRC 285
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 285
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 285
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 185 CLR 410
Cite 2 - (1995) 185 CLR 410
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] HCA 24
Cite 2 - [1995] HCA 24
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 75 ALJR 312
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 75 ALJR 312
Cite 2 - (2000) 75 ALJR 312
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] HCA 64
Cite 2 - [2000] HCA 64
Gold Coast District Health Service v Walker [2001] ICQ 62
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] ICQ 62
Cite 2 - [2001] ICQ 62
Gold Coast Health District v Walker (2001) 168 QGIG 258
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 168 QGIG 258
Cite 2 - (2001) 168 QGIG 258

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.