Maish v State of Queensland (Metro South Hospital and Health Service)

[2025] QIRC 301

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Maish v State of Queensland (Metro South Hospital and Health Service) [2025] QIRC 301

PARTIES:

Maish, Megan
Applicant

v

State of Queensland (Metro South Hospital and Health Service)
Respondent

CASE NO:

B/2025/61

PROCEEDING:

Application to stay a proceeding

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Pratt IC

On the papers

ORDER:

1.     This matter be stayed pending a decision in TD/2025/62 being delivered and any appeal rights in that matter either lapsing or being determined.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS – where applicant applied for payment of pro rata long service leave – where applicant applied, in separate matter, for reinstatement – where application for payment of pro rata long service leave and application for reinstatement turn on the same facts and issues – whether the application for pro rata long service leave should be stayed – consideration of principles for when proceedings should be stayed – held that the matter should be stayed – application  granted

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 95, s 447, s 456

Hennessy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No 2) [2023] QIRC 213

Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589

Reasons for Decision

1. Employees covered by the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act') are entitled to payment of long service leave pay if the dismissal occurs when they have more than seven, but less than ten, years of continuous service, and if their dismissal was "unfair".[1] Ms Megan Maish is a nurse who worked for the Respondent, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, or "Metro South", for just under eight and a half years when she was dismissed. She says she is entitled to long service leave because that dismissal was unfair. Metro South says the dismissal was not unfair and so Ms Maish is not entitled to long service leave.

   [1] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 95(4)(c)(iii) ('IR Act').

2. This matter, B/2025/61, is one of two matters about Ms Maish's dismissal in this Commission. The other matter is an application for reinstatement, which Metro South resists and where Ms Maish claims Metro South unfairly dismissed Ms Maish. That matter is TD/2025/62,

3. Metro South has asked me to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of TD/2025/62. The issue before me is whether I should do that.

   Should this matter be stayed pending the outcome of the unfair dismissal claim?

4. The answer to this question is 'yes' and I set out my reasons below.

5. The Commission can stay or dismiss a case if, effectively, the facts or issues of one proceeding are being dealt with in a different proceeding.[2] The Commission has the power to do this partly so that the Commission and the parties do not expend resources relitigating issues and so that there are not conflicting findings about what are basically the same facts.[3] I also have to exercise this power in a way that facilitates fair and practical conduct free of unnecessary technicalities.[4]

   [2] Ibid s 456.

   [3] Hennessy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No 2) [2023] QIRC 213 ('Hennessey'), per Knight IC at [72]-[73], [104], [109], following Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589.

   [4] IR Act (n 1) s 447(2)(b).

6. I understand that a stay delays Ms Maish's ability to receive relief for the long service leave claim. I accept that is not a trifling prejudice. But there are several factors that outweigh this prejudice and persuade me to stay the matter.

7. One such factor I weigh heavily is the need to avoid duplicate proceedings. Both B/2025/61 and TD/2025/62 turn on the same issue of whether Metro South unfairly dismissed Ms Maish. Both matters will turn on the same facts about that dismissal. I am therefore concerned that if I do not stay the proceedings then the Commission and the parties will be put to the burdensome task of dealing with two proceedings about the same issues and facts, when just one proceeding would do. I am also concerned about the risk of there being two decisions that may reach different conclusions. Such a risk threatens to undermine public confidence in the Commission because of the uncertainty and lack of finality created by conflicting decisions. Not staying the matter, too, would not facilitate fair and practical conduct of proceedings because of the cost and inconvenience in duplication that I have mentioned above. These concerns persuade me to stay this matter.

8. I also find that it is not a viable alternative to allow both cases to run and see which one is decided first. By the time that a decision would be delivered in one matter, it is likely that the Commission and the parties would have already done a lot of work in the other matter that would all be for naught. This alternative would therefore create an unnecessary waste of resources. The futility of this possible alternative persuades me to stay this matter.

9. Furthermore, Ms Maish's unfair dismissal matter, dealing with the same facts and issues as this matter, would still be on foot even if this matter is stayed. Her ability to litigate those facts and issues, therefore, would still be very much alive. Furthermore, a stay of these proceedings does not extinguish her right to have her long service leave claim heard. Quite the opposite: when her unfair dismissal claim is done, Ms Maish can come back to this matter and have a member of this Commission decide it. And the unfair dismissal is also Ms Maish's matter to run; she has a lot of say in how it runs and how quickly it reaches an outcome. From this early vantage point, too, Ms Maish would probably succeed in this long service leave matter if she proves Metro South unfairly dismissed her in her unfair dismissal matter but was not reinstated – although, I stress, this is only a preliminary view. Put briefly, if I stay this matter, then Ms Maish does not lose her ability to pursue her long service leave claim. It is just put on hold for a while. I find the lack of prejudice to Ms Maish's rights also persuades me to grant the stay.

   Conclusion

10. I understand Ms Maish's concerns about her obtaining relief for her long service leave claim. But it would be at odds with the public interest and a potential abuse of process to allow both matters to proceed when they both involve trying the same factual and legal issue of whether Ms Maish's dismissal was unfair. I order therefore that this matter be stayed until the outcome of matter TD/2025/62 is delivered and any appeal rights either lapse or are determined by the Court.

    Order

    1.This matter be stayed pending a decision in TD/2025/62 being delivered and any appeal rights in that matter either lapsing or being determined.