Hamlyn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

[2014] QIRC 148

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Hamlyn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
[2014] QIRC 148
PARTIES:	Hamlyn, Tina
(Applicant)
v
State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
(Respondent)
CASE NO:	HP/2013/20
PROCEEDING:	Action on industrial dispute
DELIVERED ON:	22 September 2014
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2014
MEMBER:	Industrial Commissioner Black
ORDERS:	1. Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - ACTION ON INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Classification of position - New classification structure - Employees engaged as health practitioners - Job descriptions, roles and responsibilities evaluated against new work level statements - Appeal process unsuccessful
CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 230
Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No 1) 2007 Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees (for Gregory Shillig) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP/2013/7) - Decision - Dr John Parke AND State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP/2013/16) - Decision - Newtown Keith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP2013/35)- Decision -
APPEARANCES:	Mr G. Butler for Tina Hamlyn, the Applicant. Mr K. Ryalls for the State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the Respondent.
Decision

[1]     The applicant, Tina Hamlyn, filed a Notice of Industrial Dispute on 15 June 2012 concerning the classification of her position as Assistant Director Medical Imaging Services - Ultrasound, Metro North Health District, Redcliffe Hospital, Queensland Health (QH). Ms Hamlyn contends that her position should have been classified at the HP6 level rather than HP5.

[2]      As the dispute was unable to be conciliated it was referred to arbitration. All health practitioner (HP) disputes that were referred to arbitration were given new HP case numbers to specifically identify the health practitioner who disputed their classification level.

[3]      The Health Practitioners (Queensland Health) Certified Agreement (No 1) 2007 (HPEB1) established a new classification structure for employees of QH engaged as Health Practitioners. The process for implementing the new classification structure was set out in Clause 18 of HPEB1.

[4]      Phase I allowed direct translation of employees who met certain criteria. Prior to the process Ms Hamlyn held the PO4 position of Assistant Director Medical Imaging Services - Ultrasound. Under phase I she translated from this position to Health Practitioner Level 4 (HP4). However, Ms Hamlyn was subsequently advised that the nomination of HP4 level was an error and that her correct classification was HP5.

[5]      Phase II allowed employees covered by HPEB1 to have their job descriptions, roles and responsibilities evaluated against new work level statements. The Queensland Health evidence was that the HP Phase II evaluation process involved the following five steps:

Step 1 -	Standardised data set - receipt of Work Unit Proposals
(WUP)
Step 2 -	Work Level evaluation (WLE) of individual position
conducted by a HP discipline specific WLE 'Panel' (WLEP).
Step 3 -	Intra-disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review
conducted by a multi-disciplinary WLE 'Team' members (WLET).
Step 4 -	Inter-Disciplinary Relativity/Consistency Review conducted by multi-disciplinary WLE 'Team' members, this group consisted of members from WLEP & WLET.
Step 5 -	HPIBB Oversight, including the subsequently developed Oversight Sub Group (OSG).

[6]      A new role description (RD) was developed for Ms Hamlyn's position by the Acting Director of Medical Imaging Services as part of the Redcliffe Medical Imaging Work Unit Proposal. The WUP was submitted and Ms Hamlyn's position was forwarded using the HP6 role description template. The RD and Work Unit Proposal were submitted in May 2008. Ms Hamlyn's position was subsequently evaluated by the Work Level Evaluation Panel at HP6. However this classification level was subsequently moderated by the Work Level Evaluation Team to HP5.

[7]      Ms Hamlyn contested the WLET outcome and lodged a notice of Intention to Appeal on 15 December 2009. Ms Hamlyn was advised on 11 April 2011 that her appeal had been unsuccessful. In an Appeal Review Statement, the Appeal Panel set out the conclusion that it had reached in respect to each of the relevant work level statement (WLS) descriptors.

[8]      Ms Hamlyn challenges the Appeal Panel decision on a number of grounds including that:

	The appeal panel failed to fully consider all the material provided;
	The appeal panel was not correctly constituted in that it did not include an independent chairperson;
	The appeal panel failed to consider the management aspects of Ms
Hamlyn’s role which involved full operational and clinical responsibility
for activities at Redcliffe Hospital;
	The appeal panel decision was not consistent with the approved position and role description;
	The Appeal Review Statement disclosed errors in the appeal process; and
	The appeals process was not completed in a manner consistent with the provisions of HPEB 1.

[9]      In the matter of Shillig [1], Commissioner Fisher defined the approach to be adopted in the following terms:

"On arbitration, the Commission's powers are confined to correcting any error

that may have occurred in the agreed reclassification process and it is

incumbent on the Applicant to demonstrate the error. In my view the practical

application of the decision of the Full Bench in Dr John Parke AND State of

2

Queensland (Queensland Health) ('Parke') is consideration of the Appeal Panel Statement and the decision of the Director-General or their delegate. The onus rests with the Applicant to show how or where the Appeal Panel and/or the Director-General or their delegate fell into error."

[1]

[10]    A similiar conclusion was recorded by a Full Bench in the matter of Newton v State

3

of Queensland (Queensland Health) :

"[17] In our view, given the nature of the task undertaken by the Appeal Panel

to consider whether the Work Level Evaluation of all the employee’s duties,

roles and responsibilities should result in the employee’s position being

reclassified we consider that the role of the Commission is to determine
whether the Appeal Panel erred.

[18] Thus, in order for the applicant to succeed in arbitral proceedings before a single Member of the Commission, the applicant must demonstrate, that the Appeal Panel erred. The Commission is not concerned with anything that

occurred prior to the appeal process.”

Material Not Considered

[11]   The applicant's submission that the Appeal Panel had erred tended to derive, in a number of aspects, from speculation arising from the brevity of the reasons given. Because there was no detailed explanation for why Ms Hamlyn failed in her appeal, the tendency was to assert that the Appeal Panel had not fully considered the matter and most likely had overlooked important elements of the material put forward by Ms Hamlyn.

[12]   The fact that detailed reasons were not provided was not unexpected given the magnitude of the reclassification task being undertaken. Further, the terms of HPEB1 did not require the Appeal Panel to provide reasons for its decisions. A review of clause 19 of HPEB1 discloses that the ultimate responsibility of the Appeal Panel is to make a recommendation regarding the correct classification level. Further clause 19.11 requires "summaries of outcomes of appeals" to be reported to the HPIBB Group, an indication that the focus was on the outcome or the recommendation, not the reasoning behind it.

[13]   While the appellant may have doubts and misgivings, she has not provided the Commission with any evidence that that Appeal Panel failed to consider the detailed submissions and supporting material provided to it. Having regard to clause 19 of HPEB1, I do not consider that the brevity of reasons should give rise to a prima

facie conclusion that the applicant’s submissions and accompanying material were

not afforded full consideration, or that the Appeal Panel was not fully conversant
with the case being argued.

[14]   Ms Hamlyn also complained that the Appeal Panel should have sought further information from her or given her an opportunity to address and satisfy any uncertainty in the mind of the panel about her classification level. This submission presumes that the panel did entertain doubts in significant areas and its decision making processes would have benefitted from further information. However there is no evidence of this uncertainty and neither did Ms Hamlyn specify the new or additional information that might have assisted. In the end result the Appeal Panel was not under any obligation to do seek further input or information and was entitled to proceed on the basis that all relevant information had been put before it by the appellant.

Appeal Panel did not include an Independent Chairperson

[15]   The applicant submitted that a failure to include an independent chairperson gave rise to an error in the process. The applicant relied in this regard, not on the terms of HPEB1, but on a document headed "The HP Appeal Guide" which is in the evidence as Exhibit 4. Clause 5(viii) of the Guide provides that the "appeal panel will be convened by an external person". Clause 6(f)(ii) provided that "the nomination of an independent person will be agreed by the parties". The reference to "parties" is understood to refer to the parties to HPEB1.

[16]   The applicant said that the 11 April 2011 correspondence she received with the decision of the Appeal Panel indicated that the appeal panel comprised two management representatives, a workplace representative and a representative of the

applicant’s discipline. There was no reference to an external convenor. Given that

the proposal to include an independent chairperson is not mandated by HPEB1 but is expressed in the form of a "guideline", and given that the guidelines involve processes agreed by the parties to HPEB1, I accept that the same parties may be able to vary the guidelines and it may be open to them to agree that in a particular case, or generally, that an external chairperson would not be used. Confirmation of such an agreement is contained in the 11 April 2011 correspondence wherein it was stated that "by agreement of all parties to HPEB1, the assessment of appeals was conducted by panels constituting two management representatives, a workplace representative and a representative of your discipline".

[17]    No error in the appeal process arises from a consideration of this factor.

Role Description

[18]   The applicant submitted that it was clear that "throughout the entire HP Process" it

was the role description that was to be evaluated and classified. In the applicant’s

case the role description was said to be represented by Attachment TH2 to Exhibit 1. Two difficulties for the applicant emerge in my consideration of this submission. Firstly, the role description represented by Attachment TH2 is the role description developed at the work unit level following the work unit designation of the applicant at HP6. Given that the work unit level recommendation was subsequently moderated to HP5, I do not see how the applicant can rely on the content of a HP6 role description.

[19]    Secondly, the provisions of HPEB1 do not support the claim that the role description is the pivotal document. Clause 19.7 of HPEB1 refers to an evaluation of "all of the employee’s duties, roles and responsibilities". It does not use the term "role

description". Further clause 4.1 of Schedule 5 refers to employees being entitled to "have the current work of their positions evaluated against the Work Level Statements". While I accept that established or proposed role descriptions would be expected to be considered in the process, I cannot afford the role description included in the work unit proposal (Attachment TH2 to Exhibit 1) the pre-eminent status given to it by the applicant.

Appeal Review Statement

[20]    The Appeal Review Statement provided an assessment of 16 work level statements. In respect to five statements the applicant was assessed at HP5 level and in respect to one statement the applicant was assessed at HP4 level. In respect to the remaining ten statements, the Appeal Panel concluded that the applicant met four at the HP6 level and did not meet six at the HP6 level. The Appeal Review Statement concluded that while the panel agreed that Ms Hamlyn satisfied some elements of HP6, she was assessed "holistically" as a high level HP5.

[21]   The applicant submitted that her appeal material addressed the four characteristic groups which categorise the work level statements, and provided substantial evidence supporting her reclassification to HP6 level. It was submitted that errors in the appeal process became evident when her supporting material (Exhibit 2) was cross referenced with the Appeal Review Statement outcomes. The following errors were said to arise from the evaluation of her appeal by the Appeal Panel:

(i)       The panel did not consider the "people and resource management" characteristics addressed by the appellant and ignored her operational management and training responsibilities;

(ii)      The panel did not consider two particular work level statements addressed by the appellant viz. HP6-1 and HP6-8;

(iii)    The panel entered findings in six instances that the appellant failed to provide evidence in circumstances where significant evidence had been provided viz HP6-2, HP6-3, HP6-10, HP6-11,HP6-19, HP6-22.

(iv)     The panel took into account work level statements that were not addressed by the appellant viz. HP5-2, HP 5-4, HP 5-20, HP4-38, HP5-32, and HP5- 34.

[22]    The applicant noted that while 27 work level statements were operative in her case, the Appeal Review Statement showed that only 16 work level statements were assessed. This was understandable given that the applicants appeal material shows that it also addressed 16 statements. The significance of the 16 work level statements is explained in the work level statement guidelines document (Attachment DGH1 to

Exhibit 8). In respect to "Clinical Professional – HP Level 6" these guidelines

provide that each level of statements builds on the previous level such that a position at each progressive HP level should contain many of the elements of that before plus additional extensions (underline is mine). The effect of this explanation is that the assessment at the HP 6 level is to be focussed on those statements which have been the subject of extensions. The starting point for the Appeal Panel was to review

these 16 statements and to assess their relevance to the applicant’s circumstances.

[23]   In this regard Ms Hamlyn’s Appeal Review Statement shows that, in terms of

"Accountability", the Appeal Panel addressed all four of the statements relevant to the applicant viz HP6-19; HP6-20; HP6-21; HP6-22. In the area of "Knowledge, Skills & Expertise", the Appeal Panel addressed three of the four statements viz HP6-9, HP6-10, and HP6-11. In terms of "Scope & Nature of Level", the Appeal Panel also addressed three of the four statements viz HP6-2, HP6-3, and HP6-4. Hence, overall, the statement has only excluded recorded comment in respect to two relevant descriptors viz HP6-1 and HP6-8.

[24]   The exclusion of the statement for HP6-1 is understandable given that it appears to be purely explanatory in nature and did not require assessment. The exclusion of the HP6-8 statement is understandable when the result of the assessment of HP6-2 is taken into account. The work level statement HP6-8 says that a person at this level "demonstrates expert level of knowledge, clinical skills, problem solving skills and experience of complex contemporary clinical practice standards, and is recognised

for this expertise as a resource for State-wide clinical advice and consultation.”

HP6-2 is similarly expressed and states that "clinical positions at Health Practitioner 6 are recognised State-wide as holding an expert level of knowledge, skills, experience and clinical leadership with the professional and/or multidisciplinary

team.” In the circumstances it was entirely consistent for the Appeal Panel not to

deal with descriptor for HP6-8 when it had already concluded in respect to the descriptor HP6-2 that the applicant did not meet the level. Finally the link between the HP6-2 and HP6-8 statements is recognised in the relevant "Guidelines for Application" section of Attachment DGH1 of Exhibit 8 where it references the notes applicable to HP6-2 in the guidelines for application of the HP6-8 statement.

[25]   The applicant appeared to argue that the Appeal Panel erred in considering work level statements that were not addressed by the applicant in her appeal material. This proposition is flawed. The Appeal Panel could not be limited in its determination in

the manner proposed. The Appeal Panel’s obligation as expressed by clause 19.7 of HPEB1 was to "consider whether the Work Level Evaluation of all the employee’s duties, roles and responsibilities should result in the employee’s position being

reclassified.” In order to discharge its obligations under this provision the Appeal

Panel would need to make its evaluation against work level statements which were

relevant to the applicant’s circumstances.

[26]   The inclusion in the Review Statement of the descriptors for HP5-2 and HP5-4 is understandable given that HP6-2 builds on HP5-2 and HP6-3 builds on HP5-4. The inclusion of the HP5 descriptors is also relevant because it assists in the

communication of the Appeal Panel’s conclusion that the applicant was at the

"specialist" level, not the "expert" or consultant level.

[27]   The applicant claimed that the Appeal Panel erred in concluding in respect to a number of work level statements that the appellant did not provide any evidence. The claim arises from an entry included in the Appeal Review Statement in respect to some work level statements which said that the "appellant failed to provide evidence". As I understood it, the applicant took this expression to mean that no evidence at all had been provided. The applicant said in the Notice of Industrial Dispute that the expression indicated either a failure to consider or a failure to understand the material submitted. In my view, while the expression could have been clearer, the words used were not to be construed literally. What they represented, in my opinion, was a conclusion in summarised form to the effect that the Appeal Panel did not consider that sufficient evidence had been provided to warrant a grade of HP6 for the statements in question. In the circumstances I am not inclined to conclude that an error in the appeal process has arisen from the use of the expression in contention.

Management Responsibility

[28]   The applicant argued that the Appeals Panel erred in not taking into account the management aspects of her role which involved full operational and clinical responsibility for activities at Redcliffe Hospital (para 18 of notice of dispute). She said in her affidavit that she had direct operational and professional management responsibility for 10 radiographers/sonographers. Her oral testimony in the proceedings did not touch on the matter. Notwithstanding the lack of merit argument in the proceedings, the technical point pursued was that, given that the applicant addressed management characteristics in her appeal, the Appeal Review Statement should have disclosed evidence of consideration of management functions.

[29]   The applicant’s appeal documents are in the evidence as Exhibit 2. A summary of

the evidence in support of a HP6 classification in the area of "People and Resource Management" is set out on page 4 of the appeal material. The evidence provided is then to be evaluated against the work level statements for the management stream. In this regard the work level statements and guidelines document (Attachment DGH1 to Exhibit 8), identifies at page 58 the following key considerations for HP6 management roles:

	Provide authoritative counsel to relevant stakeholders on matters failing within their area of professional knowledge, expertise and responsibility;
	Responsible for all aspects of operational management of a team within a large health facility or Service Area including responsibility for facilitating staff development, performance appraisal and other general people management issues;
	Strategic planning responsibilities at a District level across multiple health services or sites;
	Accountable for the administration, direction and control of the asset management and financial management of one or more cost centres.

[30]   Given that Ms Hamlyn was one of four assistant directors reporting to a director it appears unlikely that she would attract a HP6 rating in respect to her management functions. The evidence before me did not support a finding that Ms Hamlyn was accountable for financial management and asset management as described in the guidelines. In the circumstances it would be difficult for me to conclude that the appeal panel erred in not allocating Ms Hamlyn a HP6 rating for management responsibilities. Further, I think that it was open to the Appeal Panel, if it took the view that the management characteristics were not going to be determinative, to not

include specific mention of the “people and resources” statements in the Appeal

Review Statement. While, for the sake of completeness, the Appeal Panel might have desirably included reference to the management characteristics in the statement, in the circumstances of this matter it does not give rise to an error in the process.

Breach of HPEB1

[31]   In her Notice of Industrial Dispute Ms Hamlyn contended that the appeal process was not conducted in accordance with the objectives of HPEB1 and that her work and classification level was not objectively assessed in accordance with the principles and processes laid down by HPEB1. These propositions are generally couched. Where particulars of alleged breaches have been provided, the matters have been addressed in this decision. Beyond this, having regard to the evidence and submissions in the proceedings, I am not persuaded to conclude that the Ms

Hamlyn’s case is assisted by general assertions alleging non-compliance with

HPEB1.

WLEP Outcomes

[32]    In final submissions the applicant encouraged the Commission to have regard to the views of the WLEP and the Work Unit Manager when considering the various work level statements. The view was that the WLET had erred, that the WLET did not

evaluate Ms Hamlyn’s work or role and considered other factors in reaching its

decision, and that the WLET should have deferred to the WLEP findings. However this view does not adequately comprehend the role carved out for WLET by HPEB1, nor the fact that HPEB1 clearly contemplated a two stage process. Clause 9.2 of Schedule 5 of HPEB1 provides that the recommendations of the WLEP are to be reviewed by the WLET for the purpose of monitoring relativities and ensuring consistency across disciplines and professions. In my view an exercise the scale of the HP classification process could not be expected to be conducted in a vacuum and checks and balances were entirely appropriate. In the end result, on the evidence of QH, the moderation of WLEP outcomes by WLET was common.

[33]    Further HPEB1 also applied another level of oversight in that it requires summaries of outcomes of the work level evaluation process to be systematically reported to the HPIBB Group to enable this group to analyse and oversee the process. If the HPIBB Group was concerned about outcomes it could seek further information from the

WLEP’s or request that the WLET reconsider its methodology to ensure that it

complies with the guiding principles of Phase 2. These guiding principles include at clause 4.4 that the reclassification process is to be applied consistently to ensure equitable outcomes for all districts and disciplines or groups.

[34]   It is clear therefore that the reclassification process contemplated that outcomes at the work unit level would be reviewed and may be changed through the oversight activities of the WLET and the HPIBB. Clearly no error in the reclassification process arises simply because a work unit recommendation is overturned by the WLET or HPIBB process.

WLET Errors

[35]   The applicant relied to some extent on errors that she said occurred at the WLET level which were evidenced by inconsistencies or errors in the record of the WLET meeting on 8 October 2009. The appellant drew attention to the apparent failure of WLET to record a decision, and confusion on the WLET record about whether she was graded HP4 or HP5. The significant observation to be made about these matters is that they reference events that precede the decision of the Appeal Panel. Further they refer to matters of little consequence. The important consideration is that when the applicant filed her notice of intent to appeal on 15 December 2009 there was neither doubt nor confusion about her current classification level and the level that she aspired to achieve. The intent to appeal document completed by the applicant (included in Exhibit 2) recorded a Phase 1 level of HP4, a Phase 2 level of HP5, and a sought classification level of HP6.

Intra-Discipline Equity

[36]    Mr Hamilton stated in his evidence that it was common for WUP level proposals not to be confirmed by the oversight mechanisms and consistency checks. It was his evidence that, across the service, very few sonographers had in the end result secured a HP6 ranking. He said that WLEP recommended that 22 sonography positions be graded HP6, but that none of these classifications were confirmed after review by WLET. In the end result, after the appeal processes were concluded, only three sonographers were approved by the Director General at HP6 level while it was

Ms Hamlyn’s evidence that four sonographers were ultimately graded at the HP6

level.

[37]   In respect to Redcliffe Hospital, Mr Hamilton said at paragraph 11 of his affidavit, that there was a significant difference in outcomes following the WLET review. The effect of his evidence was that the majority of work unit proposals were moderated as disclosed by the following table:

WUP Level Proposal	Final Level Endorsed by
Director Genral
HP6 (four positions including Ms Hamlyn)	HP5 x 4
HP5 (five positions)	HP4 x 5
HP4 (one position)	HP3
HP3 (one position)	HP3

[38]   While considerations relating to intra-discipline equity may not be determinative, they do not in this instance give rise to any prima facie view that the Appeal Panel

erred in dismissing Ms Hamlyn’s appeal.

Expert Status

[39]   The applicant sets out her reasons for attracting expert status in paragraphs 12, 16 and 17 of her affidavit, which is in the evidence as Exhibit 1. QH contested this view and submitted in effect that the material relied on by Ms Hamlyn and the relevant evidence in the proceedings did not support the conclusion claimed by Ms Hamlyn.

[40]    The Appeal Review Statement discloses that the Appeal Panel did not conclude that Ms Hamlyn was at the expert level in the majority of relevant work level statements. A conclusion to this effect was evident from a reading of the evaluation reached by the panel in respect to the following statements:

	HP5-2: The panel found that Ms Hamlyn met the statement to the effect that clinical positions at HP5 demonstrate a specialist level of knowledge, skills, experience and clinical leadership;
	HP6-10: The panel found that Ms Hamlyn did not meet the statement to the effect that the position demonstrates active leadership in the development of high level service improvement initiatives and professional competence on a state wide basis;
	HP6-11: The panel found that Ms Hamlyn did not meet the statement to the effect that the position demonstrates a contribution to research and knowledge through publication in peer reviewed journals;
	HP6-19: The panel found that Ms Hamlyn did not meet the statement to the effect that the position provides authoritative counsel in matters relating to clinical areas of expertise to stakeholders both within and outside the discipline;
	HP6-22: The panel found that Ms Hamlyn did not meet the statement to the effect that the position was responsible for solving large-scale complex clinical service or work-flow problems through recognised expertise, high level interpretation of existing health service systems, professional standards and other pertinent external considerations.

[41]    Notwithstanding these conclusions the Appeal Panel acknowledged that Ms Hamlyn was acting at the HP6 level in certain areas. The panel found that she met the statement of HP6-20 to the effect that she exhibits leadership and advocacy in the development of professional competence on a state-wide basis. Further the panel found that Ms Hamlyn met the statement of HP6-4 in that she contributed to the development of professional competence on a state-wide basis. Finally, the panel found that Ms Hamlyn met two other statements at the HP-6 level. In the circumstances it is difficult for Ms Hamlyn to sustain her argument that the panel were less than industrious in informing themselves of her circumstances and providing a balanced account of her achievements.

[42]   Ultimately, the determination to be made is whether any error in the process is

apparent in the Appeal Panel’s determination in this area. Given the specific

consideration of Ms Hamlyn’s status as evidenced by the conclusion reached in

respect to the relevant work level statements, I am not able to identify any error in
the process employed by the Appeal Panel.

Conclusion

[43]   The appeal is driven in part by the disappointment arising from the failure of the WLET to endorse the classification settled upon by the WLEP. This suggests that some employees may not have been sufficiently familiar with the process and took a far too generous view of the WLEP outcome. Despite the arguments alleging a breach of the processes laid out by HPEB1, this agreement always provided for a review of the WLEP recommendation by WLET. Further it was clear under the terms of the agreement that the nature of the WLET exercise was to be different from the WLEP exercise. While WLEP was driven internally by the work unit and

focused on functional and operational activities, WLET’s role was an external

oversight activity preoccupied with considerations of consistency and equity both
within and across disciplines, workgroups and districts.

[44]   Another source of dissatisfaction for the applicant arose from the fact that the decision of the Appeal Panel was not delivered with detailed reasons. This led to a criticism that the Appeal Panel decision was flawed because of a perception that

limited reasons meant no adequate consideration had been afforded the applicant’s

appeal material.

[45]   While the appeal panel did not provide detailed reasons for decision, there is no evidence upon which I could make a finding that the panel failed to consider the detailed submissions and supporting material provided to it. The panel reached a specific conclusion in respect to the relevant work level statements. The Appeal Panel knew that the decision to be made was whether Ms Hamlyn should be classified HP5 or HP6. It arrived at this decision by evaluating the relevant work

level statement in the context of Ms Hamlyn’s circumstances. This was not a

decision arrived at by the application of mathematical formulae. It was an evaluative exercise, which had to produce one of two outcomes. While Ms Hamlyn is disappointed in the result I am unable to conclude that she has established the necessary errors in the appeal or reclassification process to found a decision to uphold her appeal.

[46]    The appeal is therefore dismissed.

[47] I order accordingly.

Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees (for Gregory Shillig) v State of Queensland

(Queensland Health) (HP/2013/7) - Decision -
2

Dr John Parke AND State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP/2013/16) - Decision

3

Newtown Keith v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (HP2013/35)- Decision -