Hume v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

In the matter of Hume v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the appellant, Mr Hume, challenged the respondent's decision to only partially approve his request for flexible working arrangements. The dispute was heard in the Industrial Court of Queensland, where the primary issue was whether the respondent's decision to partially approve the flexible working arrangement was fair and reasonable, considering the specific circumstances of Mr Hume and the applicable guidelines and policies.

The court had to determine if the respondent, the State of Queensland, had adequately considered Mr Hume's individual circumstances and applied the Queensland Health Guideline for Flexible Working Arrangements and HR Policy appropriately. The central concern was whether the decision was made according to the rules of reason and justice, as outlined by the relevant case law, and whether it was an abuse of the statutory power conferred upon the respondent. The court had to consider if the decision was so unreasonable that it lacked intelligent justification in all of the relevant circumstances, and if the decision-maker had complied with the policy and guideline by applying a blanket approach.

The court found that the respondent had not sufficiently considered Mr Hume's individual circumstances, primarily relying on the expectation of the particular branch that Mr Hume work within. While the respondent allowed for employees to request alternative flexible working arrangements, the decision was unreasonable as it was primarily based on the expectation itself, rather than on Mr Hume's specific situation. Consequently, the court held that the decision was not fair and reasonable and ordered the appeal to be allowed, the original decision to be set aside, and a new decision to be substituted, adjusting Mr Hume's flexible working arrangements to require physical attendance at work 20% of the time (1 day each week).