QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: Hanson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 272
PARTIES:
Hanson, Helen
(Appellant)v
State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
(Respondent)CASE NO:
PSA/2022/296 PROCEEDING:
Public Service Appeal – Appeal against a fair treatment decision
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
14 July 2022 MEMBER:
Dwyer IC HEARD AT: Brisbane
ORDER:
1. The decision appealed against is set aside; and
2. The matter is returned to decision maker with a copy of this decision; and
3. The decision maker is directed to:
a. reconsider the application for review dated 13 January 2022; and
b. issue a new decision within 28 days of this decision.
CATCHWORDS:
PUBLIC SERVICE – APPEAL - appeal against a fair treatment decision - where appellant employed by the State of Queensland as a registered nurse- where the Health Employment Directive No.12/21 - Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements required employees to receive at least a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 30 September 2021 and receive the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 31 October 2021 - where the appellant sought an exemption due to genuine religious belief and other exceptional circumstances - where exemption was refused - where decision maker did not properly consider appellant's religious beliefs – where decision is absent of written analysis of if and how the religious beliefs were considered – where decision does not comply with the terms of Individual employee grievances (Directive 11/20) – where decision not fair and reasonable – decision appealed against set aside and matter returned to decision maker with a copy of decision on appeal and directions to conduct a fresh internal review
LEGISLATION: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562C, 564
Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 194
Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements
Individual employee grievances (Directive 11/20)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)
CASES: Higgins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 030
Amaya v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 117
Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)
Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245
Kay v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 270
Slykerman v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 039
Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119
Collins v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 215
Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 091
Barbagallo v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 195
McPaul v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 175
Brasell-Dellow & Ors v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) & Ors [2021] QIRC 356
APPEARANCES: Ms H Hanson, the appellant
Ms S Bainbridge for the respondent
Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)
Background
[1]Ms Helen Hanson is employed part time as a registered nurse in a regional hospital by Queensland Health, ('the department'). It is not controversial that the Health Employment Directive 12/21
Continue reading Hanson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hanson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 272
- Case
- [2022] QIRC 272
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the decision maker properly exercised their discretion in denying the appellant's application for an exemption from the vaccination requirement. The court had to determine whether the decision maker considered the appellant's religious beliefs appropriately, provided a written analysis of this consideration, and complied with the relevant grievance directive. The court also needed to assess whether the decision was fair and reasonable.
The court found that the decision maker did not properly consider the appellant's religious beliefs, as there was no written analysis of how these beliefs were considered. This omission was a procedural error, as the Individual Employee Grievances (Directive 11/20) required a written analysis. Additionally, the decision did not comply with the grievance directive, further undermining its fairness and reasonableness. As a result, the court set aside the decision appealed against and returned the matter to the decision maker. The decision maker was directed to reconsider the application for review, taking into account the appellant's religious beliefs and the requirements of the grievance directive, and to issue a new decision within 28 days of the court's decision.
The final orders of the court included setting aside the decision appealed against, returning the matter to the decision maker, and directing the decision maker to reconsider the application for review and issue a new decision within 28 days. The decision maker was also instructed to provide a written analysis of the appellant's religious beliefs and ensure compliance with the grievance directive.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision appealed against is set aside; and
2. The matter is returned to decision maker with a copy of this decision; and
3. The decision maker is directed to:
a. reconsider the application for review dated 13 January 2022; and
b. issue a new decision within 28 days of this decision.
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.