Daley v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

Case [2023] QIRC 277


QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Daley v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 277

PARTIES:

Daley, Brian
(Appellant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Education)
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2022/883

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a disciplinary decision

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2023

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Dwyer IC

On the papers

ORDER:

1. Pursuant to s 562A(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) the appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public sector appeal – appeal against a disciplinary decision – where appellant is employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) as a Senior Teacher – where Employment Direction 1/22 – COVID-19 Vaccinations required the appellant to receive the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 17 December 2021, the prescribed number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by 23 January 2022, and to provide evidence of such vaccination by 24 January 2022 – where appellant did not comply – where respondent imposed a disciplinary penalty of reprimand and a reduction in remunerational level for a period of 18 weeks – material indicates submission similar to those which have been unsuccessfully raised by other appellants before the commission – consideration of whether to hear the appeal – appeal has no prospects of success – appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

CASES:

Employment Direction 1/22 – COVID-19 Vaccinations cl 5

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562A

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)

Mocnik & Others v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 58

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. Mr Brian Daley is employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) ('the Respondent') as a Senior Teacher at the Cleveland Education and Training Centre.

  2. By cl 5 of the Employment Direction 1/22 – COVID-19 Vaccinations dated 10 March 2022 ('the direction'), Mr Daley was required to:

    ·        receive the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 17 December 2021;

    ·        receive the prescribed number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by 23 January 2022; and

·        provide evidence of such vaccination by 24 January 2022.

  1. On 10 June 2022, Mr David Miller, Executive Director, Early Learning and Development, wrote to Mr Daley and invited him to respond to an allegation that he had contravened, without reasonable excuse, cl 5 of the direction. Mr Daley responded on 24 June 2022, stating that he held various concerns including inter alia a lack of consultation and risk assessment.

  2. On 1 August 2022, Ms Anne Crowley, Assistant Director-General, Human Resources, found that Mr Daley had contravened the direction. Mr Daley was then afforded seven days to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Mr Daley responded on 8 August 2022.

  3. On 22 August 2022, Ms Crowley made a decision to impose a disciplinary action of a reprimand and a reduction in remunerational level for a period of 18 weeks ('the decision'). The decision is the subject of Mr Daley's appeal.

    Proceedings before the Commission

  4. Mr…

Continue reading Daley v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Daley v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 277
Case
[2023] QIRC 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Daley v State of Queensland (Department of Education), the respondent, employed as a Senior Teacher by the Department of Education, challenged the imposition of disciplinary penalties following their non-compliance with Employment Direction 1/22, which mandated COVID-19 vaccinations. The appellant did not receive the first dose by 17 December 2021, the prescribed number of doses by 23 January 2022, and provide evidence of vaccination by 24 January 2022. Consequently, the respondent faced a reprimand and a reduction in remuneration for 18 weeks. The primary legal issues centred on whether the disciplinary actions were justified under the circumstances and whether the appeal had any prospects of success.

The court examined whether the disciplinary measures were proportionate and whether the respondent's actions constituted a valid ground for such penalties. The court noted that similar submissions had been raised and dismissed by other appellants previously. Given the clear requirement under Employment Direction 1/22 and the appellant's deliberate non-compliance, the court found that the respondent had a valid basis for imposing the penalties. The court concluded that the appeal did not present a reasonable prospect of success due to the well-established nature of the issues and the compliance requirements.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the respondent's decision. The appeal was dismissed pursuant to section 562A(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to public health directives and the authority of the respondent to enforce compliance within the workplace.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 562A(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) the appeal is dismissed.

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.