Donaldson v TAFE Queensland

Case [2025] QIRC 146


QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Donaldson v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 146

PARTIES:

Donaldson, Trevor
(Appellant)

v

TAFE Queensland
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

PSA/2025/41

PROCEEDING:

Public Sector Appeal – Fair treatment appeal

DELIVERED ON:

 3 June 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Neill IC

On the papers

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 539(j) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) time be extended for the Appellant to file an appeal of the disciplinary finding decision dated 20 February 2025 until 14 March 2025.

2. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) the decision in relation to Allegation 1 is confirmed.

3. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) the decision in relation to Allegation 2 is set aside and I return the matter to the decision-maker with a copy of these reasons for fresh consideration.

CATCHWORDS:

PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – where the appellant is employed by the respondent as a teacher at a TAFE college – where allegations of misconduct made against the appellant – fair treatment appeal against a disciplinary finding – where disciplinary action yet to be taken – where the appellant appeals against the substantiation of the allegations – whether the appellant engaged in the conduct the subject of the allegations – whether the decision to substantiate the allegations was fair and reasonable – the decision was not fair and reasonable

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, s 562C

Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 91, s 92

Discipline Directive 05/23, cl 7, and cl 9

Code of Conduct for Queensland Public Service 2011

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Ingham [2020] FCA 1632

Berenyi v Maynard & Anor [2015] QSC 370

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 16

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

Etherton v Public Service Board of NSW (1983) 3 NSWLR 297

Fair Work Ombudsman v Finetune Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (2012) 269 FLR 100; [2012] FMCA 349

Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

Leigh v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 23

O'Hearn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)[2023] QIRC 283

Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252

R v Perrin [2017] QCA 194

Smith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 296

Taikato v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. Mr Trevor Donaldson ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of TAFE Queensland ('the Respondent') to substantiate allegations against him.

  1. The Appellant is permanently employed by the Respondent as a Teacher (Plumbing) for TAFE Queensland, South West Region.  

  1. On 17 December 2024, the Appellant received a letter from the Respondent advising him that concerns were held regarding his conduct and invited…

Continue reading Donaldson v TAFE Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Donaldson v TAFE Queensland [2025] QIRC 146
Case
[2025] QIRC 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Donaldson appealed against a disciplinary finding made by TAFE Queensland, where she was employed as a teacher. The appeal centred on allegations of misconduct that had been substantiated against Donaldson, but no disciplinary action had been taken yet. The court had to determine whether the appellant was guilty of the conduct alleged, and whether the decision to substantiate these allegations was fair and reasonable.

The court examined the evidence and found that the decision to substantiate the allegations against Donaldson was not fair and reasonable. The court found that the evidence did not support the substantiation of the allegations, and that the decision-maker had failed to properly consider the evidence and the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision in relation to Allegation 2 and returned the matter to the decision-maker for fresh consideration. The court also confirmed the decision in relation to Allegation 1, as the evidence supported the substantiation of this allegation. Additionally, the court extended the time for the appellant to file an appeal of the disciplinary finding decision.

The court's orders included extending the time for the appellant to file an appeal of the disciplinary finding decision, confirming the decision in relation to Allegation 1, and setting aside the decision in relation to Allegation 2. The matter was returned to the decision-maker for fresh consideration, with a copy of the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 539(j) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) time be extended for the Appellant to file an appeal of the disciplinary finding decision dated 20 February 2025 until 14 March 2025.

2. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) the decision in relation to Allegation 1 is confirmed.

3. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) the decision in relation to Allegation 2 is set aside and I return the matter to the decision-maker with a copy of these reasons for fresh consideration.

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.