QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Ganly v Queensland Audit Office (No 2) [2015] QIRC 114 |
PARTIES: | Brian Ganly v Queensland Audit Office (No 2) |
CASE NO: | B/2014/70 |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Injunction |
DELIVERED ON: | 10 June 2015 |
HEARING DATES: | 4 March 2015 |
MEMBER: | Industrial Commissioner Neate |
ORDERS: | 1. The Respondent is hereby restrained from taking any further steps under Chapter 6, Part 2 of the Public Service Act 2008 with respect to the action against the Applicant initiated by it through its letter of 22 August 2014 until the grievance raised by the Applicant in his letter of 13 November 2014 pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Queensland Public Service Award - State 2012 is finalised. |
| CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - disciplinary proceedings against employee commenced under Public Service Act 2008 - employee initiated grievance process under relevant Award before disciplinary process complete - employee sought injunction from Commission to restrain respondent from proceeding with disciplinary process until grievance dealt with - injunction granted |
CASES: | Industrial Relations Act 1999 s 277 |
| APPEARANCES: | Mr K. Watson, counsel instructed by Moriarty and Associates, for the Applicant |
Decision
Brian Ganly ("Applicant"), an auditor employed by the Queensland Audit Office ("Respondent"), applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission") for an injunction under s 277 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 to prevent disciplinary action being taken in relation to him by the Respondent under the Public ServiceAct 2008 ("PS Act") before the Applicant's related grievance is dealt with in accordance with the procedure contained in the Queensland Public Service Award - State 2012.
The Applicant's grievance related to a letter to him dated 22 August 2014 signed by Anthony Close, Deputy Auditor-General, in which the Applicant was invited to show cause why a disciplinary finding should not be made against him in relation to allegations that he had accepted and used a free car park from an audit client.
On 17 October 2014, Mr Close wrote to the Applicant advising that he had carefully considered all the evidence before him (including the response made on the Applicant's behalf dated 29 September 2014) and had determined that the allegation against the Applicant was substantiated on the balance of probabilities. Mr Close determined that the Applicant contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of the Code of Conduct. He found that the Applicant was liable for disciplinary action pursuant to s 188 of the PS Act, and was giving serious consideration to imposing a specified penalty, including a reduction of classification level and consequential change of duties.
On 13 November 2014, the Applicant lodged an employee grievance with his manager about both the decision to find the allegation against him to be substantiated and the decision to seriously consider a demotion as the proposed penalty.
Having reviewed the evidence and submissions, and for reasons published on 2 June 2015, I held that the Applicant is entitled to an injunction against the Respondent: Ganly vQueensland Audit Office [2015] QIRC 108.
The parties were directed to file with the Industrial Registrar draft minutes of orders to give effect to the Commission's decision. Consistently with that direction, the parties provided a draft minute of orders by consent on 9 June 2015.
I am satisfied that the draft minute of orders gives effect to the Commission's decision.
Accordingly, I make the following order:
1.The Respondent is hereby restrained from taking any further steps under Chapter 6, Part 2 of the Public Service Act 2008 with respect to the action against the Applicant initiated by it through its letter of 22 August 2014 until the grievance raised by the Applicant in his letter of 13 November 2014 pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Queensland Public Service Award - State 2012 is finalised.
- AGLC
- Ganly v Queensland Audit Office (No 2) [2015] QIRC 114
- Case
- [2015] QIRC 114
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to grant the injunction and, if so, whether the circumstances warranted such an order. The central issue was whether the grievance process should be prioritised over the ongoing disciplinary action, given that both processes could potentially impact Mr Ganly’s employment rights and conditions. The court also had to consider the interplay between the Award’s grievance process and the statutory disciplinary process provided for by the Public Service Act 2008.
The court found that it had jurisdiction to grant the injunction and that the circumstances warranted it. The court reasoned that the grievance process under the Award was intended to provide a preliminary mechanism for resolving workplace issues, which should not be circumvented by the commencement of disciplinary proceedings. The court considered it appropriate to ensure that the grievance was finalised before any disciplinary action proceeded, as this would uphold the integrity of both processes and protect Mr Ganly's rights. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, restraining the respondent from taking any further steps in the disciplinary proceedings until the grievance was finalised.
The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent was to be restrained from proceeding with the disciplinary action against Mr Ganly until the grievance raised in his letter of 13 November 2014 was finalised. This decision ensured that the grievance process was given due consideration before any disciplinary measures were taken, thereby upholding the principles of fair process and protecting Mr Ganly's employment rights.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Respondent is hereby restrained from taking any further steps under Chapter 6, Part 2 of the Public Service Act 2008 with respect to the action against the Applicant initiated by it through its letter of 22 August 2014 until the grievance raised by the Applicant in his letter of 13 November 2014 pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Queensland Public Service Award - State 2012 is finalised.
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.