Hardy v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science)

In the case of Hardy v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science), the appellant challenged a decision made by the Department regarding her request for a flexible working arrangement. Specifically, Ms Hardy had requested to work from home three days a week, but her request was denied. Instead, she was encouraged to apply for a flexible working arrangement to work from home five days per fortnight for a three-month period. Ms Hardy argued that the decision was unfair and unreasonable, and she sought for the original decision to be set aside and a new decision made allowing her to work up to three days per week from home.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the decision made by the Department was fair and reasonable, in line with the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). The court examined the Department's response to Ms Hardy's flexible working request, the key responsibilities outlined in her role as a Senior Environmental Officer, and the potential impact of allowing her to work from home three days a week on the department's resources and operations. The court also considered whether the Department's suggestion for a three-month trial period of working from home five days per fortnight was consistent with the relevant legislation and policies.

The court found that the Department's decision was fair and reasonable. The court noted that the Department had thoroughly reviewed the documents and position description in considering Ms Hardy's request. The Department highlighted that her role was a compliance position that required her to undertake activities in the field, and that her work relied on the use of a departmental vehicle and assets. The court accepted the Department's reasoning that allowing Ms Hardy to work from home three days a week would either deprive the office of necessary assets or require the purchase of additional items. The court also noted that the Department's suggestion for a three-month trial period of working from home five days per fortnight was consistent with the relevant legislation and policies.

The court confirmed the decision appealed against, finding that the Department's decision was fair and reasonable. The court rejected Ms Hardy's argument that the decision was unfair and unreasonable, and it did not set aside the original decision or make a new decision allowing her to work up to three days per week from home.