Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) - [2022] QIRC 292

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 292
PARTIES:	Bishop, Veronica (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	PSA/2022/549
PROCEEDING:	Public Service Appeal – fair treatment appeal
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2022
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Pidgeon IC On the papers
ORDER:	*Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the decision appealed against is confirmed.*
CATCHWORDS:	PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public service appeal – external review – where the appellant applied for an exemption from QAS HR Policy – Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements – where appellant was denied an exemption from complying with the policy – where appellant submits that decision is unfair and unreasonable
LEGISLATION:	Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 17 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B and 562C Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 194 QAS HR Policy – Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements s 3.6
CASES:	Blomfield v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 116 Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 039 Stevens v Epworth Foundation [2022] FWC 593 Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 002

Reasons for Decision
Introduction

Veronica Bishop (the Appellant) is employed by the Queensland Ambulance Service (the Respondent). Ms Bishop is employed as an Emergency Medical Dispatcher at the Far Northern Region/Cairns Operation Centre. The Respondent describes Ms Bishop's role as 'an operational role which is responsible for receiving and monitoring emergency calls, providing essential prearrival advice and coordinating and dispatching Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) resources and patient transport movements for the Queensland community'.
On 13 September 2021, the Code of Practice and QAS HR Procedure – COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements (the Procedure) was published. The Procedure required that QAS employees who fall within a high-risk group be subject to mandatory vaccination requirements. Section 3.6 of the Procedure provided for an employee to apply for an exemption where the employee has a recognised medical contraindication, the employee has a genuinely held religious belief or where another exceptional circumstance exists.

On 4 November 2021, Ms Bishop applied for an exemption to the mandatory vaccine requirements identifying 'other exceptional circumstances'.[1]

[1] Respondent's submissions filed 6 June 2022, Attachment 1.

On 31 January 2022, the Director-General, Queensland Health updated the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for QAS employees and released a new QAS HR Policy – Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements (the QAS HR Policy). That policy requires existing employees currently undertaking work or moving into a role undertaking work listed in a cohort of Table 1 of the QAS HR Policy to have received the first dose and second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 27 February 2022.[2] Group 2 in Table 1 covers QAS employees who are employed to work in a hospital or other healthcare setting where clinical care or support is provided, including ambulance stations and emergency operations centre staff.

[2] Information contained in letter from Mr Ray Clarke, Executive Director, Workforce, Queensland Ambulance Service…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service)

Details

AGLC: Bishop v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 292
Case: [2022] QIRC 292
Decision Date: 4 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, an employee of the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS), appealed against a decision by QAS to deny their application for an exemption from the Employee COVID-19 Vaccination Requirements policy. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) was tasked with reviewing the decision made by QAS and determining whether it was fair and reasonable.

The central legal issue before the QIRC was whether the QAS's decision to deny the appellant's application for an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination policy was unreasonable. The appellant argued that the decision was unfair and unreasonable, while QAS maintained that the decision was within their lawful discretion. The QIRC had to examine the policy, the application process, and the reasons provided for the denial of the exemption.

In assessing the matter, the QIRC considered the policy's provisions, the appellant's application, and the reasons for the decision. The QIRC found that QAS had acted within their lawful discretion in denying the exemption and that the decision was not unfair or unreasonable. The QIRC also found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the decision was based on an error of law or a failure to consider relevant matters.

Accordingly, the QIRC confirmed the decision of QAS, upholding the denial of the exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination policy. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of QAS was confirmed pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.