Donnelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
Case
•
[2022] QIRC 149
•29 April 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Donnelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 149
[2022] QIRC 149
29 April 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Donnelly v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) involved an employee, Donnelly, who was subject to the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21, which required all employees working in hospitals or facilities providing clinical care to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Donnelly sought an exemption from this requirement but was denied. The dispute reached the Queensland Court of Appeal, where Donnelly contested the decision to deny his exemption request.
The court was required to determine whether the decision to deny the exemption was fair and reasonable. The primary consideration was the risk posed to the health and wellbeing of patients, colleagues, and other stakeholders if Donnelly, who remained unvaccinated, continued to work in a healthcare environment. The court had to balance the individual rights of the employee against the public health imperative of maintaining a vaccinated workforce in sensitive healthcare settings.
In its reasoning, the court found that the directive was a reasonable and proportionate measure given the exceptional circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the decision to deny the exemption was fair and reasonable, considering the significant risk that an unvaccinated employee could pose in a clinical setting. The court confirmed the decision to uphold the directive, emphasising the importance of protecting public health in healthcare environments.
The final orders of the court were to confirm the decision appealed against under section 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). Donnelly's appeal was dismissed, and the requirement for healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 was upheld.
The court was required to determine whether the decision to deny the exemption was fair and reasonable. The primary consideration was the risk posed to the health and wellbeing of patients, colleagues, and other stakeholders if Donnelly, who remained unvaccinated, continued to work in a healthcare environment. The court had to balance the individual rights of the employee against the public health imperative of maintaining a vaccinated workforce in sensitive healthcare settings.
In its reasoning, the court found that the directive was a reasonable and proportionate measure given the exceptional circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the decision to deny the exemption was fair and reasonable, considering the significant risk that an unvaccinated employee could pose in a clinical setting. The court confirmed the decision to uphold the directive, emphasising the importance of protecting public health in healthcare environments.
The final orders of the court were to confirm the decision appealed against under section 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). Donnelly's appeal was dismissed, and the requirement for healthcare workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 was upheld.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Public Service
-
COVID-19 vaccination requirements
-
Risk to health and wellbeing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Goodchild v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 46
Cases Citing This Decision
16
Goodchild v State of Queensland (Department of Education)
[2025] QIRC 46
Malancioiu v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2024] QIRC 300
Hoffman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No 2)
[2024] QIRC 186
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Graffunder v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2022] QIRC 76
Elliott v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2022] QIRC 139
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[1995] HCA 10