Mason v Paroo Shire Council
[2025] QIRC 167
•1 July 2025
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
| CITATION: | Mason v Paroo Shire Council (No. 3) [2025] QIRC |
| 167 | |
| PARTIES: | Mason, Barbara |
| (Applicant) | |
| v | |
| Paroo Shire Council (Respondent) | |
| CASE NO: | B/2021/45 |
| PROCEEDING: | Application – Recovery of Unpaid Wages |
| DELIVERED ON: | 1 July 2025 |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| MEMBER: | Hartigan DP |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDER: | As to the question for arbitration: |
From 5 June 2018 was Ms Barbara Mason employed as a Senior Officer by the Paroo Shire Council pursuant to cl 4.2 Exemption of senior officers, as provided for in Division 2 – Section 1 (Administrative, clerical, technical, professional, community service, supervisory and managerial services) of the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017?
The answer is:
No.
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION – EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE – OTHER MATTERS – where Applicant is seeking to recover unpaid wages – where the Applicant was employed as a Tourism Team Leader – where the question for arbitration was agreed between the parties – where the answer at first instance was that the Applicant was not a "senior officer" for the purpose of the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017 – where the Respondent appealed the decision to the Industrial Court of Queensland – where the Industrial Court of Queensland remitted it back to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to reconsider – whether the Applicant is a "senior officer" in accordance with the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017 – consideration of relevant terms – where the Applicant as a team leader was found to not be a department head for the purposes of the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017 |
| LEGISLATION: | Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream |
| A) Award – State 2017 (Qld), cl 4.2, cl 7.2 | |
| CASES: | Mason v Paroo Shire Council (No. 2) [2023] QIRC 273 |
| Paroo Shire Council v Mason [2024] ICQ 11 |
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
In Mason v Paroo Shire Council (No. 2),[1] the Commission, as presently constituted, was required to consider the agreed question for arbitration which was in the following terms:
From 5 June 2018 was Ms Barbara Mason employed as a Senior Officer by the Paroo Shire Council pursuant to cl 4.2 Exemption of senior officers, as provided for in Division 2 – Section 1 (Administrative, clerical, technical, professional, community service, supervisory and managerial services) of the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017?
The Commission answered that question as "no".
The Paroo Shire Council ('the Council') appealed the primary decision to the Industrial Court of Queensland on grounds that were reformulated by the Court as follows:[2]
[20] By Ground 1, it is contended that the Industrial Commissioner conflated the two limbs of the definition and failed to consider the various alternative elements of limb 1, critically:
(i) whether Ms Mason was a manager or principal decision maker; and (ii) whether the Tourism Team was a department or an operationally distinct unit, or part of the local government comprising a major function or program. [21] By Ground 2, it is contended that the Industrial Commissioner erred by conflating the consideration required by limb 2, namely that the employee only be under the control of the CEO, with the requirements of limb 1.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the answer given to the question and remitted the application to the Commission on the basis that there were errors in the approach taken in the construction of the term "senior officer" as referred to in the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017 ('the Award').
As is apparent, the appeal was confined to the construction of the relevant provision of the Award and its application. To that end, I will not repeat matters, unless necessary, that remain undisturbed by the appeal.
The parties have agreed by consent that I redetermine the matter on the papers.
Relevant Provisions in the Award
The coverage provisions of Division 2 – Section 1 of the Award provides for the exemption of "senior officers". Relevantly, cl 4.2(a) provides for the exemption of senior officers as follows:[3]
4.2 Exemption of senior officers
(a)
This Award shall not apply to any employer in respect of a senior officer where the employer and the senior officer concerned enter into a written contract of employment which states that this Award is not to apply to the terms and conditions of employment of the senior officer.
…
Clause 4.2(c) of the Award provides that for the purposes of cl 4.2 the term "senior officer" covers the following positions:[4]
4.2 Exemption of senior officers …
(c) For the purposes of this clause, the term senior officer covers the following positions: chief executive officer – a chief executive officer is a person appointed to the position as defined under the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld).
senior executive employee – is an employee of the local
government entity concerned.(i) who reports directly to the chief executive officer; and
(ii) whose position ordinarily would be considered to be a senior position in the local government's corporate structure.
department head – is an officer appointed as such by the local
government entity concerned who:(i) is the principal decision maker or manager of a department or operationally distinct unit or part of the local government comprising a major function or program; or
(ii) holds a managerial, leadership or regulatory compliance position responsible for an operationally distinct unit or part of the local government, who may act independently subject to the local government's policy of the overriding administrative review of the chief executive officer and is held finally accountable for the performance of the unit or part of the local government.
For the purpose of the application, Ms Mason contends that she is not a "senior officer" within the meaning of the Award while the Council contends that Ms Mason falls within limb 1 of the definition of "department head".
The Proper Construction of cl 4.2(c) of the Award
The Industrial Court considered the construction of cl 4.2 of the Award to be as follows:[5]
[11] The definition of "department head" has two limbs, subparagraph (i) (limb 1) and subparagraph (ii) (limb 2). The two limbs are not cumulative in effect. If an employee falls within the description of limb 1 or limb 2, the employee is a "department head" and is therefore a "senior officer" and consequently not subject to the Award.
[12] Limb 1 has two parts. Firstly, it identifies the role of the employee. Secondly, it identifies particular parts of the local government organisation. If the employee has a prescribed role within a prescribed part of the local government, then the employee is a "department head" and therefore a "senior officer".
[13] Limb 1 identifies the role of the employee as either:
(i) the principal decision maker; or (ii) the manager. [14] It identifies the part of local government as either:
(i) a department; or (ii) an operationally distinct unit or part of the local government comprising a major function or program. [15] It is unclear whether the phrase "an operationally distinct unit" is limited by the words "comprising a major function or program" or whether those words only limit the phrase "part of the local government". It is unnecessary to determine that aspect of the construction of cl 4.2(c) of the Award.
[16] Limb 2 is of less importance to the current appeal as the Council says Ms Mason falls within limb 1. It does not rely upon limb 2 as an independent basis for exclusion. However, the Award must be read as a whole and the Council submits that there are features of limb 2 which inform the proper construction of limb 1.
[17] Limb 2, like limb 1, defines the employee by reference to role. However, the role must be one that is independent, "subject only to the local government's policy or the overriding administrative review of the chief executive officer". Limb 1 also requires a degree of independence. The employee must be the "manager" or the "principal decision maker". However, it does not depend upon any particular administrative relationship between the employee and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Limb 2 effectively requires independence from all administrative restraints other than those imposed by "the local government's policy" or the CEO.
As is apparent from the appeal, limb 1 of the definition, which is relied on by the Council, requires identifying whether the relevant person was the principal decision maker or manager. It also requires the identification of the part of local government as either a department or an operationally distinct unit or part of the local government comprising a major function or program.
The Industrial Court did not attempt to define those terms any further.
Application of the Construction of cl 4.2 of the Award to the Facts of this Matter
Was Ms Mason "the principal decision maker" or "manager"?
[13] The terms "the principal decision maker" and "manager" are not defined within the Award. However, there are other references to the term "manager" in the Award. Relevantly, cl 7.2 entitled "Prevention and settlement of employee grievances and disputes – other than Award matters" refers to a manager as follows:[6]
7.2 Prevention and settlement of employee grievances and disputes - other
than Award matters… (b)
The following procedure applies to all industrial matters within the meaning of the Act:
…
Stage 2: If the grievance remains unresolved, the employee shall refer the grievance to the next in line management ("the manager"). The manager will consult with the relevant parties. The employee may exercise the right to consult or be represented by such employee's representative during the course of Stage 2. …
The definition provided to the term "manager" in cl 7.2 defines a manager as being the "next in line management". Given the number of classification levels and positions in the Council there would be a large number of employees who fall within that meaning of the term to whom the Award applies and who would not fall within the definition of "department head".
Accordingly, the term must be construed by considering the text of the words and by having regard to its context and purpose.
The ordinary meaning of the term "principal" includes:[7]
adjective 1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.
2. of the nature of principal, or a capital sum.
–noun 3. a chief, head, or governing officer.
4. the head teacher of a school, college, etc.
…
In this context, the term "principal" is read as an adjective to the noun "decision maker". The phrase "decision-maker" is defined in the following terms:[8]
noun 1. a person with the power or authority to make major decisions, as in
government, administration, business, etc.
2. a person who has the ability to arrive at a firm decision, usually in a short space of time.
Accordingly, the principal decision maker is the chief decision maker or the decision maker who holds the highest rank.
The term "manager" is defined as:[9]
noun 1. someone who manages.
2. a person charged with the management or direction of an institution, a business or the like.
3. someone who manages resources and expenditures, as of a household.
4. a person in charge of the business affairs of an entertainer or group of entertainers.
5. a person in charge of the performance and training of a sporting individual or team.
6. Aboriginal English an Aboriginal person who, though not a traditional owner, nevertheless has a special interest in and relationship with the land.
As noted above, there are many potential managers within a local government to whom the Award would apply.
[21] It is not immediately apparent if the adjective "principal" is to apply to the term "manager", however, even if it does not, I consider that the term "manager" takes meaning from the context within which it appears. Accordingly, "manager" in the context of the definition of "department head" would be considered to be the most senior manager. This accords with the purpose of the provision which is to define who the department head is.
Accordingly, the principal decision maker or manager is the person who is the most senior officer who makes the decisions and manages. Implicit in this definition is that a department head has the ultimate power and responsibility for any decisions made and the ultimate power and responsibility as manager.
What is a "department" or "operationally distinct unit" or "part of local government comprising a major function or program"?
The ordinary meaning of "department" is:[10]
noun 1. a distinct part of anything arranged in divisions; a division of a complex
whole or organised system.
2. a division of official business or duties or functions.
3. one of the (large) districts into which a country, as France, is divided for administrative purposes.
4. one of the principal branches of a governmental organisation.
Given the context within which it appears a department is one of the principal branches of a governmental, in this context local government, organisation.
The term "operationally" is an adverb and indicates that a thing is "ready for use; in working order".[11]
"Distinct" is defined to mean:[12]
adjective 1. (sometimes followed by from) distinguished as not being the same;
not identical; separate.2. …
3. clear to the senses or intellect; plain; definite; unmistakable.
"Unit" is a noun that has the following relevant meaning:[13]
noun 1. a single thing or person; any group of things or persons regarded as an
individual.2. one of the individuals or groups making up a whole, or into which a whole may be analysed.
3. any magnitude regarded as an independent whole; a single, undivided entity.
4. any specified amount of a quantity, as of length, volume, force, momentum, time, by comparison with which any other quantity of the same kind is measured or estimated.
Accordingly, an operationally distinct unit means a separate unit operating within the Council.
The final phrase from limb 1 to define is "or part of local government comprising a major function or program".
The term "major" when used as an adjective means "greater, as in size, amount, extent, importance, rank, etc.: the major part of the town",[14] or "very important or significant: a major problem".[15]
[31] "Function" means "the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution".[16]
"Program" is defined to mean "a plan or policy to be followed"17 or "a list of things to be done; agenda".[18]
Accordingly, to be an operationally distinct unit or part of local government comprising of a major function or program would require the function or program to be very significant, or an important, part of the Council.
Relevant Background
Ms Mason commenced her employment with the Council on 3 October 2017 and was engaged in various positions throughout the course of her employment which ended on 9 July 2021.
Ms Mason held the positions of Casual Tourism Officer, Tourism Team Coordinator and Tourism Team Leader.
The position of Tourism Team Coordinator was classified as a level three role under the Award. Whilst Ms Mason was employed in the Tourism Team Coordinator role a new position, Tourism Team Leader, was created in 2018.
The Council contends that when Ms Mason performed the role of Tourism Team Leader she fell within limb 1 of the definition of "department head" and, consequently, was a "senior officer" and was exempt from the application of the Award.
During the course of the hearing, Ms Mason called the following witnesses:
(a) Ms Barbara Mason; (b) Mr Sean Rice, former acting Chief of Operations at Paroo Shire Council from October 2019 until February 2020 and then acting Chief Executive Officer ('CEO') from February 2020 to 1 October 2020; and (c) Mr Anthony Trace, former Director of Community Support and Engagement at Paroo Shire Council, also known as Chief Corporate Officer ('CCO'), from January 2018 to December 2018.
The witnesses for the Council were:
(a) Mr Anthony James Koch who was, at the time of giving evidence, the current CCO at Paroo Shire Council; and (b) Ms Cassandra White who was, at the time of giving evidence, the current CEO at Paroo Shire Council.
Accordingly, each of the witnesses, other than Ms Mason, had experience performing in the role of CCO or CEO, during the period that Ms Mason performed the role of Tourism Team Leader. Relevantly, at the time of giving evidence, Mr Rice and Mr Trace no longer worked for the Council whereas Mr Koch was the then CCO and Ms White was the then CEO of the Council.
The witnesses each executed affidavits which were tendered into evidence and comprised the evidence-in-chief of the witnesses. Each of the witnesses were called for cross- examination.
The Corporate Structure of the Council
The corporate structure of the Council at the relevant time was tendered as an exhibit in the hearing on 4 August 2022 and is attached to these reasons and marked Annexure A.[19]
As is evident from the corporate structure, the Mayor and Councillors hold the highest rank, followed by the Chief Executive Officer. The Council is then divided into four separate divisions which are each respectively headed by the Director of Infrastructure, the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of the CEO, and the Director of Community Support and Engagement. In this matter, the Director of Community Support and Engagement's position title was also referred to as "Chief Corporate Officer". Falling within the umbrella of Community Support and Engagement were further divisions being Local Laws, Rural Lands and Compliance, Tourism, Libraries, and Community Services.
Ms Mason, in her role, together with the librarian, the Local Laws officers, Rural Lands and Compliance officer and the Community Services manager each fell on the same line within the corporate structure and reported to the CCO, who in turn, reported to the CEO.
The Evidence
Ms Mason's evidence was that she reported to the role of CCO and that she had three staff, one permanent level three employee and two casual level three employees who reported to her. Ms Mason confirmed under cross-examination that she signed off on timesheets for the staff who reported to her.
The CCO would conduct Ms Mason's performance reviews.
[47] Ms Mason's evidence is that she had fortnightly meetings with the CCO but would regularly meet with the CCO outside of those meetings when she needed to run matters past the CCO.
Ms Mason was required to obtain permission from the CCO to progress plans and would meet with the CCO monthly to present a report for the CCO to then include in the CCO's Council report.
In the performance of her role, Ms Mason managed a budget and was required to keep tourism spending within the budget. The budget amount was approved by the CCO who would present it to the CEO and then to the Council for their final approval.
Ms Mason was delegated an amount in which she was authorised to spend on behalf of the Council. Initially, the amount that Ms Mason and others at her level were authorised to spend was $50,000 but that was reduced to $20,000 and then further reduced to $5,000 during the period she held the position.
[51] Further, in the performance of her role, Ms Mason sourced grants on behalf of the Council. However, it was the CEO who approved all funding and grant applications for the Council with the CCO identified in some applications as the authorising officer.
[52] Under cross-examination, the following exchange occurred between the Council's representative, Mr Heffernan, and Ms Mason as to why she understood she was not a "senior officer":[20]
MR HEFFERNAN: And you are right, all the evidence is that you were outstanding at your job and that you were able to make these decisions. So why is it your evidence that you indicate that you were not this level of seniority?---Because I wasn't. I couldn't just do what I wanted. I couldn't just – I had rules and boundaries and I had two above me. I had a manager, a CEO, a mayor and a council that I had to report to. I was not a senior manager. If I'm a senior manager, then so is the libraries, so is communities. And I'm sure that they would be pleased to know they're senior management.
Mr Rice, who was employed as the acting CCO from October 2019 to February 2020 and then as acting CEO from February 2020 until October 2020, also gave evidence.
Mr Rice stated that Ms Mason's position did not form part of the Executive Leadership Team ('ELT') whilst he was employed at the Council. He stated that the ELT was comprised of the CEO, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operations Officer and the CCO. Mr Rice's evidence confirmed that whilst he was acting CEO, Ms Mason did not report to him. His evidence was that Ms Mason reported to the CCO who then reported to the CEO.
In response to a question under cross-examination asking whether a department manager can report to another manager,[21] Mr Rice responded that there were three departments within the Council and, consequently, three department managers for "engineering or infrastructure", "finance" and "corporate services".
[56] Mr Rice also confirmed that, like other employees at the Council, Ms Mason had delegated authority to sign off on authorised transactions of a certain sum of money.
Mr Trace also gave evidence during the proceedings. Mr Trace was employed by the Council from January 2018 to December 2018 as the CCO. He also acted periodically as the CEO.
Relevantly, Mr Trace's evidence was that Ms Mason was not a member of the ELT and that Ms Mason and the other level three roles reported directly to him in the role of CCO. Mr Trace's evidence was that Ms Mason did not act independently, that she reported directly to him and required his approval for decisions relating to the operation of the tourism function.
Mr Trace's evidence was that when he performed the role of CCO, tourism was one of six service programs that he was responsible for.
Under cross-examination, Mr Trace accepted that tourism was a strategic priority and major focus for the Council.
Under persistent cross-examination about who was responsible for the tourism delivery, Mr Trace consistently stated that he held the ultimate responsibility. The following passage is an example:[22]
And she was finally accountable for those programs, wasn't she?---I was – I was accountable – I was responsible for the delivery of those programs. Barbara was accountable for delivering on those tasks allocated to her.
[62] Mr Koch, called as a witness by the Council, was employed as the Director of Community Support and Engagement within the Council. That role was formerly known as the CCO and Mr Koch commenced in the CCO role in November 2019.
Mr Koch's evidence was that Ms Mason had responsibility for purchasing amounts within her delegation.
When Mr Koch first worked as the CCO, Ms Mason's financial delegated authority was $50,000 per transaction but was subsequently reduced to $20,000 per transaction. Mr Koch confirmed that Ms Mason autonomously purchased items within her financial delegation.
Mr Koch described having "courtesy conversations" wherein Ms Mason would go to him for mentoring and advice.
Mr Koch's evidence was also that Ms Mason was "fully" responsible for marketing and networking to grow the tourism spend within the Council. Ms Mason was the Shire representative for the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils. Further, Ms Mason was strategically and operationally responsible for tourism.
Mr Koch's evidence was that Ms Mason was a member of the leadership team and that "we [being Mr Koch and Ms Mason] would meet most months but not every month".
Under cross-examination, Mr Koch confirmed he was responsible for approving matters relating to the tourism function which fell outside Ms Mason's financial delegation and that he would undertake Ms Mason's performance reviews.
Mr Koch's evidence was that on the occasions where he held the responsibility or "where [he] was making the decision or that financial transaction or that particular event or that particular spend" then he would talk to Ms Mason to ensure he understood "what was going on".[23]
Despite his attempts to suggest otherwise, it was apparent from Mr Koch's evidence, particularly under cross-examination, that he was making decisions and managing the various aspects of the tourism function. The fact that he agreed that he made decisions beyond Ms Mason's authority or delegation supports a conclusion that he was the most senior officer making those type of decisions.
Mr Koch was cross-examined with respect to the position description for his role,[24] and in particular, a passage that refers to his department reporting to him through the respective team leaders as follows:
It says, "this role is part of the executive leadership team reporting directly to the CEO. The community support and engagement department of Council reports to the director through the respective team leaders as shown in the organisation chart". Is that right?- --Correct.
Ms White was, at the relevant time of giving evidence, the CEO of the Council. Ms White commenced performing the role on 7 September 2020.
Ms White's evidence was that tourism was considered to be a major function or program of the Council and was included in the Council's strategic plan.
Ms White deposed to the Tourism Unit as being operationally distinct as it was located in different premises to the Council.[25]
[75] Ms White also deposed to Ms Mason directly communicating with "people on the ground, including industry stakeholders".[26]
Ms White referred to Ms Mason originally having a $50,000 per transaction delegated authority which Ms White reduced to $20,000. Under cross-examination, Ms White confirmed that she reduced this further to $5,000 per transaction.
Ms White's evidence was that Mr Koch had very little input into Ms Mason's role. Her evidence was that he "was more of a mentor and sounding board, as was appropriate, as she was the department manager for Tourism."
Ms White was cross-examined on this evidence as follows:[27]
So you're saying there that Mr Koch was really a mentor and a sounding board for Ms Mason. Are you aware that he undertook her performance reviews?---I would expect him to, as her department leader, yeah.
So he was not a mentor; he was the department leader?---Well, he was the director that she reported to.
That's right. And had responsibilities as her leader; is that right? That's more than being a mentor and a sounding board, isn't it?---Well, it depends on which context you're looking at it in.
Well, looking at it in the context where she reports directly to him. That's more of a – that's not just being a mentor, is it?---Well, it is if you're only going for guidance or advisory. "This is what we've done. This is where we're up to. This is what's happened." Not necessarily asking for direction or, like, the intimate detailed oversight or interaction.
But doesn't Ms Mason's position description say that she reports directly to him?---It does – or it should do.
Well, that's certainly more than a mentor, isn't it?---You can have the position description as that, but the activity on the ground could vary from that.
Ms White's evidence was that she understood that, prior to her arrival at the Council, Ms Mason reported directly to Mr Rice as the acting CEO.
In this regard, Mr Rice's direct evidence contradicted Ms White's understanding of what occurred prior to her arrival. I prefer Mr Rice's evidence regarding the nature of the reporting lines during the period he acted as CEO.
Ms White was also cross-examined with respect to her evidence that "[t]he Tourism Unit was operationally distinct, including having a different premises to Council" as follows:
Now, you say "different premises to council". Was it a council-owned building?---It is a council-owned building, but it's separate from the infor – sorry, from the administration building.
Sure. Are there other functions of council that are separate from the admin building?-
--The depot sits – sits separately.Yep?---I guess in 2019, referring that the administration building was demolished, so staff were dispersed across many different areas. So Communities were, obviously, down in the neighbourhood centre. Depot staff and a lot of the admin staff moved out to the depot, and the CEO actually went to sit in the tourist centre alongside the Economic Development and Tourism manager at the time.
Right. What about the library? Is it separate?---The library is separate, yes.
Right. And have you got a swimming pool at Cunnamulla?---We do.
Right. I imagine that's separate from the admin building?---It is.
[82] It is apparent from this evidence that a number of the Council's services divisions operated from geographically distinct locations.
Consideration
In order to determine if Ms Mason was the "department head" it is necessary to determine whether she was the principal decision maker or manager of a department or operationally distinct unit or part of the local government comprising a major function or program.
I will approach this task by firstly identifying whether the Tourism Unit was a department or operationally distinct unit or part of a major function or program of the local government and then consider if Ms Mason was the principal decision maker or manager of it.
The corporate structure reveals that there were four key separate areas of the Council. Relevantly, the Council, in a similar manner to other state or local governments, then operated separate divisions within the four separate areas.
One of the four areas, Community Support and Engagement, had a number of divisions within in it including, the local laws officers, the library and the tourism team.
The area of Community Support and Engagement operated as a department because it was one of the principal branches of the Council. The Tourism Unit fell under the umbrella and control of the department of Community Support and Engagement.
For similar reasons, the Tourism Unit was not an operationally distinct unit. The reason for this is because its operations fell within the power and control of the department, being Community Support and Engagement. The Tourism Unit was not operationally distinct from Community Support and Engagement.
However, there was evidence that the Tourism Unit performed a major function of the local government.
The evidence was that tourism was a significant part of the Council's strategic policy and that the grants achieved and the tourism events planned were significant to the Council. The significance of these matters are supported by the evidence that the tourism function had a proportionately large budget, that a portion of the rates revenue was allocated to the tourism function, that the tourism function applied for and generated grants and that tourism formed a part of the Council's strategic plan.
[91] On this basis, I conclude that the Tourism Unit was a part of the local government comprising a major function.
Was Ms Mason the Principal Decision Maker or Manager of the Tourism Function?
The Council relied on the following matters, as relevantly summarised, in support of its position that Ms Mason was a department head and, consequently, a senior officer:
(a) Ms Mason was responsible for approximately 15 percent of the Council's resources; (b) Ms Mason was responsible for the recruitment of her own staff within the Tourism Unit; (c) Ms Mason attended and managed team meetings; (d) Ms Mason played a key role in the leadership team; (e) Ms Mason managed multiple projects with the Council; and (f) Ms Mason would report to the former acting CEO Mr Rice.
Further, the Council relied on the evidence-in-chief of Ms White to assert that Ms Mason was financially accountable and the principal decision maker in her role as "department head". In particular, the Council submits as follows:
i. The Applicant was delegated $98,000 for use in the Bush Project;
ii. The Applicant managed the Hot Springs project, including extensive leadership facilitation which would at least be a $5 Million project.
iii. The Applicant lead the time tunnel project;
iv. The Applicant had direct communication with TMR to facilitate project delivery and approvals;
v. The Applicant achieved a $943,000 grant and reported directly to Ms White, further having direct communications with the Federal Government;
vi. approval of any additional projects or tourism expenditure would have to be reviewed by The Applicant before any steps were taken.
vii. The Applicant controlled staffing, including recruitment and selection decisions, recruitment panel chairing and even declining one of her staff members working from home flexibility;
viii. The Applicant was a key stakeholder member with the Outback Queensland Tourism Association; and
ix. The Applicant was further a key stakeholder member with the Southwest
Regional Economics Development Committee.
…
For the reasons stated below, I do not accept that Ms Mason was the principal decision maker or manager as contended by the Council.
There is no doubt given her role as Tourism Team Leader that Ms Mason performed tasks including some managerial tasks in the performance of her role.
Relevantly, Ms Mason was the Team Leader and managed, as their direct supervisor, the three employees engaged in the Tourism Unit whose positions sat below Ms Mason's position.
[97] Similarly, Ms Mason was also responsible for work and tasks performed by her in performance of her role as Tourism Team Leader. This included performing work such as making decisions, managing tourism events and programs and performing tasks associated with the Council applying for external grants. In this respect, I accept that Ms Mason had some autonomy within the scope of her role with respect to the tourism projects she worked on.
The evidence also supports that Ms Mason had some financial responsibility insofar as, within the scope of her role and consistent with the financial delegations and supervision of more senior officers, she managed a budget. Ms Mason had some financial autonomy insofar as she had a delegated authority for transactions which commenced at $50,000 but was ultimately reduced to $5,000 per transaction during her time in the role.
[99] This evidence supports a conclusion that Ms Mason performed her role in a manner consistent with the performance of her role as the Tourism Team Leader, insofar as it was a managerial role of one of the services areas that fell within the department of Community Support and Engagement. However, the mere fact that Ms Mason made decisions or conducted managerial duties does not mean she necessarily falls within the definition of "department head" within the Award.
[100] Regard must also be had to the corporate structure which identifies the corporate hierarchy of positions within the Council and the responsibilities of the relevant officers within that hierarchy.
[101] As noted above, the CCO was the Director (or head) of the Community Support and Engagement department.
[102] In this capacity, Ms Mason and the other level three positions including the librarian and the local laws officers reported to the CCO. It was within the context of this corporate structure that Ms Mason made decisions and performed some management duties.
[103] The evidence was also that Ms Mason regularly met with the CCO on both a formal and informal basis to report to and seek approval for the tourism functions.
[104] The evidence was that Ms Mason would provide a report to the CCO who was the officer responsible for presenting information regarding the tourism portfolio to the Council.
[105] The evidence was that any transactions that went beyond Ms Mason's financial delegation (ultimately being an amount of $5,000) was made by the CCO.
[106] Further, whilst Ms Mason would brief the CCO on tourism matters, any significant decision regarding the tourism function was made by the CCO. This includes making decisions in relation to and being held accountable for managing the tourism budget, being the authorising officer for tourism events and either authorising or seeking the CEO's authority to apply for grants and making decisions about whether the tourism function accorded with the Council's strategic plan.
[107] I accept that in the performance of her role, each of the respective CCOs relied on work performed and information provided by Ms Mason but that it was the role of the CCO that was the principal decision maker and manager of the tourism function.
[108] This conclusion reflects Mr Trace's evidence, which is accepted, that the CCO was responsible for the delivery of the tourism programs whereas Ms Mason was accountable for delivering on those tasks allocated to her.
[109] Further, the combination of the evidence of Ms Mason, Mr Rice and Mr Trace support a conclusion that:
(a) Ms Mason was not considered to be a member of the ELT; (b) in the performance of her role, Ms Mason directly reported to the CCO (as did other level three roles); (c) in reporting to the CCO, Ms Mason required the CCO's approval for the operation of the tourism functions; and (d) Ms Mason had a delegated budget which was indicative of her role as a "level three" position within the organisational structure. [110] In totality, the evidence supports a conclusion that Ms Mason was not the principal decision maker or manager of the tourism function. Rather, it was the CCO, who was the most senior officer, who was ultimately responsible for the tourism function and, as the senior officer, it was the CCO who was the principal decision maker or manager of the tourism function at the Council.
[111] Accordingly, the answer to the question for arbitration is "no".
Order
[112] For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
As to the question for arbitration:
From 5 June 2018 was Ms Barbara Mason employed as a Senior Officer by the Paroo Shire Council pursuant to cl 4.2 Exemption of senior officers, as provided for in Division 2 – Section 1 (Administrative, clerical, technical, professional, community service, supervisory and managerial services) of the Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017?
The answer is:
No.
ANNEXURE A
[1] [2023] QIRC 273.
[2] Paroo Shire Council v Mason [2024] ICQ 11, [20]-[21] ('Paroo Shire Council v Mason').
[3] Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017 (Qld) cl 4.2(a) ('the Award').
[4] The Award (n 3) cl 4.2(c) (emphasis added).
[5] Paroo Shire Council v Mason (n 2) [11]-[17].
[6] The Award (n 3) cl 7.2 (emphasis added).
[7] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 26 June 2025) 'principal'.
[8] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 26 June 2025) 'decision-maker'.
[9] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 26 June 2025) 'manager'.
[19] Paroo Shire Council, 'Paroo Shire Council: Approved Structure – 23 June 2020', Exhibit 2 in Mason v Paroo
Shire Council, B/2021/45, 4 August 2022.
[20] Transcript of Proceedings, Mason v Paroo Shire Council (Queensland Industrial Relations Commission,
B/2021/45, Hartigan DP, 4 August 2022) 60 ('Transcript of Hearing on 4 August 2022').
[25] Paroo Shire Council, 'Affidavit of Cassandra White', Affidavit in Mason v Paroo Shire Council, B/2021/45,
23 June 2022, [30].
[26] Ibid [55].
[27] Transcript of Hearing on 4 August 2022 (n 20) 87.
0
2
0