Carr v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

In Carr v State of Queensland (Department of Education), the appellant, Mr Carr, employed as a teacher by the State of Queensland, appealed against a disciplinary decision that followed his failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination directive. The Employment Direction 1/22 mandated that Mr Carr receive the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 17 December 2021 and the second dose by 23 January 2022. His failure to comply led to his suspension without remuneration, which was later cancelled effective 30 June 2022. The central issue before the court was whether the decision not to repay Mr Carr's remuneration for the period of his suspension was fair and reasonable.

The court considered whether the Department of Education was justified in not repaying Mr Carr for the suspension period. It accepted that the appeal related solely to the decision not to reimburse Mr Carr for the period of suspension. The court noted that there was jurisdiction for the Commission to hear this appeal. However, the submissions did not address the findings in Winter v State of Queensland (Department of Education), a case released on 9 September 2022, which the court found to be directly analogous. The court adopted the findings of Deputy President Merrell in Winter, which established that the reason for the employee's unavailability to work, apart from the suspension, was due to the operation of the Second CHO Direction, which applied because of the employee's unvaccinated status.

The court concluded that the Departmental Direction, separate from the First and Second CHO Directions, was a lawful direction that required certain public service employees to be vaccinated. The First and Second CHO Directions were lawfully issued by the Chief Health Officer under the Public Health Act 2005. The court found that Mr Carr was not lawfully able to enter the workplace due to his vaccination status and therefore was not entitled to remuneration or reimbursement. The decision appealed against, confirming the non-repayment of remuneration, was deemed fair and reasonable.

ORDERS:
1. The decision appealed against is confirmed.