Meynell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: PARTIES:	Meynell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 268 Meynell, Tina (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	PSA/2024/154
PROCEEDING:	Public Service Appeal – Promotion decision
DELIVERED ON:	9 October 2025
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	McLennan IC On the papers
ORDERS:	*1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016* (Qld), the promotion decision appealed against is set aside. 2. The matter is returned to the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS) with a copy of this decision. 3. I direct that, within one month, the chief executive of THHS is to revoke the appointment of Ms Alysha Morgan to the position of Clinical Midwife (Rotation) Nurse Grade 6(1) classification, Job Ad Reference TV583145, and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked. 4. I direct that a new selection panel is to be formed, for the purposes of selecting an applicant for the vacant position of Clinical Midwife (Rotation) Nurse Grade 6(1) classification, Job Ad Reference TV583145 ('the vacant position') and that the new selection panel must not include: • Ms Honey Newman, Midwifery Unit Manager, Maternity Women's and Children's Service Group; • Ms Chloe Woods, Acting Clinical Midwifery Consultant Birth Suite, Women's and Children's Service Group; and • Ms Leanne Windsor, Clinical Project Officer, Support Service Department. 5. The new selection panel must be provided with a copy of ss 42 -46 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and Public Sector Commission Directive 07/23: Recruitment and Selection. 6. The chief executive is to continue the recruitment and selection process for the vacant position from the point immediately after the selection of shortlisted applicants for interview. The shortlisted applicants in the resumed selection process shall comprise the three shortlisted applicants in the process subject of this appeal (should they wish to continue to be considered for the vacant position): • Ms Alysha Morgan • Ms Tina Meynell • Ms Courtney Risdale / McGuire**
CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION & OTHER INSTRUMENTS: CASES:	PUBLIC SECTOR – CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTION OR TRANSFER – where a referee made a negative comment about the appellant – where the comment was not put to the appellant – where adverse information ought to have been put to the appellant under Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection – appeal allowed Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) Public Sector Act Directive 04/23: Appeals cl 10 Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 8, cl 9, cl 11, cl 12, cl 13 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018)

Reasons for Decision

Background

Ms Tina Meynell (the Appellant) appeals against a promotion decision of Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS), Queensland Health, State of Queensland (the Department; the Respondent).
THHS promoted two people to Clinical Midwife (Rotational) (Nurse Grade 6(1)) positions, within a brief period of time. Ms Meynell's appeal is against the second of those promotion decisions – that is, the appointment of Ms Alysha Morgan.
Decision to promote Ms Kym Krobath – not subject of this appeal
The first promotion decision occurred with respect to Ms Kym Krobath. That was to the position of Clinical Midwife (Rotational) (Nurse Grade 6(1) to THHS) effective 24 June 2024, against Job Ad Reference TV556860, as published in the Queensland Health Services Bulletin No. 1667 on 26 July 2024.[1]
[1] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, Attachment 2.
Decision to promote Ms Alysha Morgan – the subject of this appeal
Specifically, Ms Meynell appeals the appointment of Ms Alysha Morgan to the vacancy of Clinical Midwife (Rotational) (Nurse Grade 6(1) to THHS) effective 13 August 2024, against Job Ad Reference TV583145, as published in the Queensland Health Services Bulletin No. 1672 on 30 August 2024.[2]
[2] Ibid [2].
Ms Morgan's promotion occurred only a short time after the promotion of Ms Krobath and was filled as a recurring vacancy.
Appeal Grounds
Ms Meynell's appeal grounds are that she should have been awarded the promotional position Ms Morgan was appointed to because:
·She was denied feedback, following the interview for the promotional position that Ms Krobath was ultimately appointed to;
·She was not provided with an opportunity to respond to a negative referee comment, obtained at the time of the interview for the promotional position that Ms Krobath was ultimately appointed to;
·She was top of the merit list, following the interview for the promotional position that Ms Krobath was ultimately appointed to, so should have been appointed to the next permanent position vacancy rather than Ms Morgan;
·She was a superior candidate for the second promotional position, rather than Ms Morgan, on the basis of: prior experience acting in management roles; advanced academic study; extensive clinical skills to fulfil the role, support colleagues and mentor students; interview performance; and skill competencies.
Process undertaken to fill vacant positions

The first promotion decision occurred with respect to Ms Kym Krobath. That was to the position of Clinical Midwife (Rotational) (Nurse Grade 6(1) to THHS) effective 24 June 2024, against Job Ad Reference TV556860, as published in the Queensland Health Services Bulletin No. 1667 on 26 July 2024.[3]
[3] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, Attachment 2.
The first promotion position was advertised on 5 April 2024 and applications closed on 9 May 2024. Five applications were received, of which four were shortlisted for interview. One candidate withdrew prior to interview, leaving three shortlisted candidates – Ms Krobath, Ms Morgan and Ms Meynell.[4]
[4] Ibid [4]-[5].
The three shortlisted candidates were interviewed on 29 May 2024 by the Selection Panel comprising:
·Ms Honey Newman, Midwifery Unit Manager, Maternity Women's and Children's Service Group (the Panel Convenor / Chairperson).
·Ms Chloe Woods, Acting Clinical Midwifery Consultant Birth Suite, Women's and Children's Service Group (Panel Member); and

·Ms Leanne Windsor, Clinical Project Officer, Support Service Department, (External Panel Member).[5]

[5] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, [5].

Ms Meynell stated that Ms Newman told her on 10 June 2024 that:
…I was not successful…[and] verbally informed me that I was on top of the merit list and would be offered the next available position. I immediately requested feedback…[6]
[6] Appeal Notice filed 20 September 2024, 4.
On 12 June 2024, the Selection Panel unanimously determined to recommend Ms Krobath for the position. The other two shortlisted candidates were ranked in order of merit in the Selection Report dated 12 June 2024 – Ms Morgan was ranked "2^nd in order of merit" (after the recommended candidate, Ms Krobath) and Ms Meynell was ranked "3^rd in order of merit".
The Selection Report stated that the contact person for feedback was Ms Newman.[7]
[7] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, Attachment 1.
Dr Kendall George, Director of Midwifery, Women's and Children's Service Group, THHS, approved the Selection Panel's recommendation to appoint Ms Krobath to the promotional position on 24 June 2024.[8]
[8] Ibid [7]-[8], Attachment 1.
On 25 June 2024, Ms Newman emailed Ms Meynell to discuss the promotional decision, as the latter was on night shift.
Feedback not provided
However Ms Newman and Ms Meynell ran into each other in the stairwell, as one was arriving and the other leaving the workplace. Ms Newman and Ms Meynell each recall that stairwell conversation differently – as well as the date that it occurred.
Ms Newman stated that she told Ms Meynell on 26 June 2024 that:
·        an email has been sent the previous day seeking her to contact the Panel Convenor.
·        they were unsuccessful for the Advertised Position, but placed on a merit list; and
·        if they required any feedback, they were to email the Panel Convenor.[9]
[9] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, [11].
Ms Newman denied that Ms Meynell requested feedback during that interaction and asserted that she would have immediately actioned this if she had done so.[10]
[10] Ibid [25].
The Respondent stated that "an unsuccessful notification email was sent to the Appellant and provided the contact details of Ms Newman to seek post-selection feedback" on 26 June 2024 at 3:15 pm.[11]
[11] Ibid [26].
However, Ms Meynell asserted that (emphasis added):
I have been denied feedback. I have requested feedback both verbally on 26/09/2024 and in writing. In my grievance letter on 6^th September 2024 'I have never received written correspondence about the role; the only written information is a reply to my email of 1^st August 2024. I have never received written feedback, which I still request. I noted on Smart Jobs that the status is "finished" with no notification outcome, post-selection, or unsuccessful letter." However, in Kendall George's reply, "Ms Newman states that at no time did you request either, verbally or in writing, written feedback on your unsuccessful application for the position of Clinical Midwife (Rotation)."[12]
[12] Appellant's submissions filed 14 October 2024, 2.
While Ms Meynell's grievance letter dated 6 September 2024 - "which receipt was acknowledged by email from Ms Honey Newman on 06 September 2024"[13] - is not before me, from the above extract it appears that Ms Meynell had requested written feedback in her letter dated 6 September 2024 at least. Notwithstanding that, Dr George's reply dated 4 October 2024 provided that "Ms Newman continues to extend the opportunity to you for feedback on the recruitment should you wish, and I encourage you to reach out to Ms Newman to arrange this."[14]
[13] Appellant's submissions filed 1 November 2024, Attachment 1, 1.
[14] Ibid 3.
From the above, it is clear that leaving aside whether or not Ms Meynell verbally asked Ms Newman for feedback following her unsuccessful interview, she did so contained within the correspondence to Ms Newman dated 6 September 2024. Instead of providing it at that point, Dr George's 4 October 2024 reply correspondence invited Ms Meynell to "reach out to Ms Newman to arrange this." I appreciate that Ms Meynell may have considered Dr George's response rather frustrating, as it sidestepped Ms Meynell's reasonable insistence on being provided with the feedback she was entitled to. With respect to the different recollections of Ms Newman and Ms Meynell as to whether or not an earlier verbal request for feedback was made, as at 6 September 2024 (at the latest) Ms Meynell had made written request for feedback in a letter sent to Ms Newman. Notwithstanding that, Ms Meynell was not provided with feedback from the interview for the promotion position won by Ms Krobath.
That is despite the provisions of Directive 07/23 Recruitment and Selection (Recruitment Directive), specifically cl 12 'Feedback' which states:
12.2Applicants who request feedback must receive timely, specific and constructive feedback from a member of the selection panel. The mode of feedback is at the discretion of the panel member providing feedback, and must be reasonable in the circumstances.
For the reasons above, Ms Meynell was entitled to feedback about her interview and requested it on 6 September 2024 (at the latest, if not earlier verbally). As at 6 September 2024 (at least), it was mandatory for Ms Newman (or another member of the selection panel) to provide Ms Meynell with "timely, specific and constructive feedback." That did not occur.
However, Ms Meynell has not filed this appeal against the decision to appoint Ms Krobath to the promotional position – but rather she appealed against the second promotional decision to appoint Ms Morgan. That is clear in the Appeal Notice.[15]
[15] Appeal Notice filed 20 September 2024, 4.
Even if Ms Meynell were now to seek to appeal that first promotion decision to promote Ms Krobath, she would now be significantly out of time to do so. That is because Ms Krobath's appointment was announced on 26 July 2024[16] and Ms Meynell filed this appeal on 20 September 2024 without any request that the Commission exercise its discretion to extend time to hear the appeal. That is significantly later than the 21-day time limit for appeals under s 564 of the IR Act.
[16] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, Attachment 2.
Although I accept that Ms Meynell asked for feedback on her interview for the promotional position won by Ms Krobath and did not receive it, that does not disturb the second promotional decision made by THHS to appoint Ms Morgan.
No opportunity to respond to negative referee comment
As part of the selection process for the first promotional position, Ms Newman conducted reference checks in the period from 29 May 2024 to 5 June 2024.[17]
[17] Ibid [6].
Referee comments for each shortlisted candidate were included in the final summary statement for each, within the Selection Report.[18] The final summary statements for the other shortlisted candidates did not contain any negative remarks from referees. However, in addition to several positive comments, Ms Meynell's referee reports also:
…mentioned that Tina' communication style can appear abrupt at times of high acuity and in some instances, she gets escalated when under pressure which can impact the wider team…[19]
[18] Ibid Attachment 1.
[19] Ibid 4.
Ms Meynell asserted those referee comments should have been put to her for response, in accordance with the Recruitment Directive, cl 11 'Dealing with adverse information', but was not.
The Respondent submitted that:
…aside from one brief comment about the Appellant's communication style, the referee reports appear wholly positive and in support of the Appellant.
[and that]
…had the Selection Panel considered the information to adversely impact their decision that greatly, it was open to the Selection Panel to document the relevance of this information, and also document whether this information impacted on the Appellant's suitability for the role. It is submitted that had the Selection Panel determined the Appellant unsuitable for this position, they would not have appeared as a shortlisted applicant on the Selection Report.[20]
[20] Respondent's submissions filed 8 November 2024, [12]-[13].
In my view, it does not matter that most of the referee comments about Ms Meynell were positive. The referee comments that were made about Ms Meynell's "abrupt" communication style and impact on the wider team occurring when "escalated under pressure" does constitute "adverse information that may adversely affect a selection decision".[21] In such circumstances then, it was mandatory for the Selection Panel to "provide the adverse information to the person and invite them to make submissions about the adverse information"[22] – though this did not occur.
[21] Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 11.2.
[22] Ibid cl 11.
Further, the Respondent has asserted that "had the Selection Panel considered the information to adversely impact their decision that greatly" the relevance and impact of it may have been documented. My view of that submission is that clearly it was considered relevant because it was so "documented and included as part of the selection report documentation." Clause 11.5 of the Recruitment Directive prescribed that must occur "Where adverse information is relied upon in a way that impacts a selection decision…" As earlier noted, the referee comments for each of the shortlisted applicants were contained in the final summary statement in the Selection Report. If the comments obtained were not to be so relied upon, it does not follow that they would be included in the final summary for each candidate. While I acknowledge that cl 9.12 of the Recruitment Directive provides that "At a minimum, referee checking must be conducted for the applicant determined to be best suited to the position…," the Selection Panel did not adopt that "minimum" but instead chose to obtain referee checks for all shortlisted candidates. Given that, the Selection Panel then must provide any adverse information received to Ms Meynell for her response.
Although the Respondent submitted that "had the Selection Panel determined the Appellant unsuitable for this position, they would not have appeared as a shortlisted applicant on the Selection Report," it does not follow that the adverse information not put to Ms Meynell is such that it makes her "unsuitable for this position." In my view though, it did affect the Selection Panel's assessment of Ms Meynell because it was included in the Selection Report and she was ranked third in order of merit. One can be considered less suitable because of the referee comments, whilst still being considered suitable to do the advertised position.
For those reasons, I consider that the referee comment made about Ms Meynell was "adverse information" that should have been put to her for response, as mandated by the Recruitment Directive. That should have occurred at the time of the candidate selection process for the first promotional position that was won by Ms Krobath. Though as I have earlier noted, this appeal was not filed against the decision to appoint Ms Krobath.
However, the failure of the Selection Panel to put the "adverse information" to Ms Meynell for her response is also highly relevant to the decision made to appoint Ms Morgan (that is the subject of this appeal). Although the Respondent noted "The Panel Convenor offered the position to Ms Alysha Morgan, as she was shortlisted as applicant #2 on the Selection Report" for the first promotional position won by Ms Krobath, as there is "no positive obligation to advertise a recurring vacancy",[23] the Recruitment Directive still mandates that (emphasis added):
At a minimum, referee checking must be conducted for the applicant determined to be best suited to the position, including where a process is used to fill a recurring vacancy under clause 8.19 and where a decision is made to directly employ someone without advertising a vacancy under clause 8.16.[24]
[23] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, [14]-[15].
[24]Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 9.12.
As I have observed above, when making a recommendation to appoint Ms Morgan to the recurring vacancy, the Selection Panel was still required to do a referee check for the preferred candidate "at a minimum." Relevantly, the Selection Panel had not adopted the "minimum" requirement - and had also obtained a referee check for Ms Meynell, that included "adverse information" not put to her for response. Even where filling a recurring vacancy, the Respondent must be satisfied that the process is "consistent with the principles underpinning recruitment and selection under section 44 of the [PS] Act."[25] Those principles include adoption of processes that are "fair and transparent."[26] That includes provision of an opportunity to respond to adverse information, that was neglected in this case.[27]
[25] Ibid cl 8.21.
[26] Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 44(3)(b).
[27] Directive 07/23: Recruitment and selection cl 11.
As the Respondent submitted, the decision to offer the recurring vacancy position to Ms Morgan was made because "she was shortlisted as applicant #2 on the Selection Report" of the earlier process in which Ms Krobath was the successful candidate. It may the case that other factors combined to lead the Selection Panel to conclude that Ms Morgan was at the top of the merit list, rather than Ms Meynell – however, it is evident that the referee comment was considered and relevant to the Selection Panel's determination because it was included in the final summary. It should have been put to Ms Meynell for her response but was not. That is more than a 'mere blemish' but a fatal flaw in the Selection Panel's attention to the mandatory process contained in the Recruitment Directive and Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) (PS Act) principles.

For those reasons, the process undertaken to appoint Ms Morgan to the recurring vacancy was not fair and reasonable, as the selection process was deficient. I must set aside the decision on those grounds alone.
Merit list ranking
Ms Meynell contended that she was top of the merit list, following the interview for the promotional position that Ms Krobath was ultimately appointed to, so should have been appointed to the next permanent position vacancy rather than Ms Morgan.
I accept that Ms Meynell believed she was at the top of the merit list, whether she was told that by Ms Newman or not I cannot know. Certainly, that statement is denied by the Respondent.
However, the evidence of the Selection Report is before me.[28] That shows that Ms Meynell was listed "3^rd in order of merit", after Ms Krobath and Ms Morgan.
[28] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, Attachment 1, 4.
Factors to inform determination as to best candidate for position
Ms Meynell submitted she was the superior candidate for the second promotional position, rather than Ms Morgan, because of: prior experience acting in management roles; advanced academic study; extensive clinical skills to fulfil the role, support colleagues and mentor students; interview performance; and skill competencies. Those arguments were elaborated within Ms Meynell's submissions.
The Respondent submitted that the Selection Panel established an order of merit "by conductive a holistic assessment of the candidates, clearly documenting the reasons for arriving at the shortlisted order, as exhibited at Attachment 1."[29]
[29] Respondent's submissions filed 25 October 2024, [25].
As I have earlier noted, that documentation of the Selection Panel's considerations included the adverse information that was not put to Ms Meynell for her response, as required by the Recruitment Directive. Failure to comply with a mandatory requirement of the Directive has resulted in my finding that the Respondent's promotional decision was not fair and reasonable. I will set the decision aside for that reason.

Decision against which an appeal may be made

Section 131 of the PS Act identifies the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Section 131(1)(e) and s 129 of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against "a decision to promote a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis".

Section 133(e) of the PS Act prescribes that a public sector employee employed on a permanent basis who is aggrieved by the decision and is entitled to appeal under a directive" may appeal against the promotion decision.
Clause 10.4 of Directive 04/23 Appeals (the Appeals Directive) stipulates an array of requirements with respect to who may lodge an appeal against a promotion decision. The parties do not dispute that the Appellant meets those requirements.

I am satisfied that the promotion decision, as contained in the gazetted notice of 30 August 2024, constitutes a decision made by the Department and is capable of appeal pursuant to the PS Act.

Appeal principles

The appeal is decided by reviewing the decision "to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable".[30]
[30] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3).

The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing but rather involves a review of the decision arrived at by the Department and the associated decision-making process.[31]
[31] Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5.
Section 562B(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) (the IR Act) provides that:
For an appeal against a promotion decision or a decision about disciplinary action under the Public Service Act 2008, the commission –
(a)must decide the appeal having regard to the evidence available to the decision maker when the decision was made; but
(b)may allow other evidence to be taken into account if the commission considers it appropriate.
A decision made by the Department, which was reasonably open to it, should not be disturbed on appeal.
What decisions can the Commission make?
Section 562C(1) of the IR Act prescribes that the Commission may determine to either:
·confirm the decision appealed against; or
·set the decision aside and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted under a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner that the commission considers appropriate.

The Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if they find that the recruitment or selection process was deficient.[32]
[32] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562C(2).
In determining whether there was such a deficiency, the Commission must consider whether the recruitment and selection process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive of the commission chief executive.[33]

[33] Ibid.

It is necessary, in determining whether the promotion decision was fair and reasonable and whether the recruitment and selection process was deficient, to consider the Appellant's submitted grounds of appeal.
Relevant legislation

Section 562C(2) of the IR Act states (emphasis added):
In deciding an appeal against a promotion decision, the commission may set the decision aside only if the commission finds that the recruitment or selection process was deficient, having regard to whether the process complied with the Public Service Act 2008, a regulation or a directive of the commission chief executive under that Act.

Section 44 of the PS Act provides:
44      Principles underpinning recruitment and selection
(1)The purpose of this section is to ensure the recruitment and selection of a high-performing, apolitical and representative public sector workforce.
(2)A person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, including, for example, making a decision about employment of a public sector employee, must undertake the process in accordance with the principles mentioned in subsection (3).
(3)      The principles are—
(a)recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position; and
(b)      recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent; and
(c)recruitment and selection processes must reflect the obligations under chapter 2 relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.
The Recruitment Directive relevantly provides:

8. Attraction and Advertising
…
8.4 Recruitment and selection processes must be undertaken in accordance with the principles underpinning recruitment and selection, as provided for in section 44 of the Act and clause 4.6, including where advertising is limited, or a person is directly appointed under clause 8.16.
Advertising requirements

8.5     Vacancies are not required to be advertised if they are:
         (a)      entry level roles
         (b)           to be filled for a period of up to six months, subject to clause 8.6
(c) proposed to be filled by a public sector employee at or below level via transfer, redeployment, secondment or mobility arrangement

(d) to be filled as a recurring vacancy (see clause 8.19)
(e) for a casual role.
…

Ability to limit advertising or directly employ a person without advertising
8.16 A chief executive may decide to:

(a) directly employ a person without advertising a vacancy
(b) limit the advertising of a vacancy to a specific group of applicants (including targeted recruitment).

8.17 In determining whether to exercise their discretion under clause 8.16, a chief executive must consider:
(a) their obligations under the Act, including:
(i) maximising employment security and permanency of employment, consistent with the main purpose of the Act and how the main purpose is primarily achieved (section 3 and 4)
(ii) the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources (section 177 – for chief executives of departments)

(iii) adherence to the public sector principles (section 39)
(iv) the attraction of a diverse workforce (section 24)
(v) the duty to promote equity and diversity in relation to employment matters (section 27)
(vi) adherence to the principles underpinning recruitment and selection (section 44)

(b) whether a similar vacancy was advertised previously
(c) whether the position classification or nature (for example, fixed-term temporary to permanent) has changed, including as part of a progression scheme, or where a position classification is upgraded, and the decision maker determines that the incumbent has demonstrated that they can perform the duties to the required standard or level
(d) the implications of any workplace change, including whether exemption from or limited advertising will prevent the displacement of existing permanent public sector employee/s
(e) whether the incumbent has been seconded to or has been acting in the position for a period of 12 months or more, but is unable to be converted to that position permanently under the relevant directive, for example because they are not substantively employed in the public sector entity

(f) the impact, if any, on the achievement of the entity’s service delivery outcomes.

8.18 A chief executive must document the reasons for exercising discretion under clause 8.17, the factors considered in making the decision, and how the decision is consistent with the principles underpinning recruitment and selection under section 44 of the Act.

Recurring vacancies

8.19 A chief executive may decide to fill a vacancy as a recurring vacancy in the following circumstances:
(a) where a vacancy is identical to the originally advertised vacancy in terms of title, remuneration, classification level, role description, provided the employment decision is made within 12 months of the closing date of the initial vacancy
(b) where a vacancy is similar to a vacancy previously advertised, provided that:
(i) the classification level, remuneration, role requirements and key capabilities are the same as the original vacancy
(ii) the employment decision is made within 12 months of the closing date of the initial vacancy and the advertisement identified that applications may be used to employ applicants in similar vacancies for a period of up to 12 months.

8.20    In applying clause 8.19, an entity may fill a non-permanent recurring vacancy from a previously advertised permanent vacancy, however, may not fill a permanent recurring vacancy from a previously advertised non-permanent vacancy.
8.21    When filling a recurring vacancy under clause 8.19, a chief executive must be satisfied that the process and selection decision is consistent with the principles underpinning recruitment and selection under section 44 of the Act.
…
  Assessment of the person best suited to the position
9.10    When selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process must:
(a)      comply with any relevant direction given by the chief executive under clause 7.6
(b) conduct a holistic assessment of eligible applicants in the context of the role requirements and the factors provided for in section 45(2) of the Act
(c)clearly document why a person is assessed as being the eligible applicant best suited to the position, including a comparative assessment where there is more than one applicant in a process.

9.11 Assessment processes for advertised positions must:
(a) consider contemporary and best practice selection techniques relevant to the requirements of the position and the entity’s operating context
(b) incorporate selection techniques that enable a sufficiently comprehensive and holistic assessment of each applicant within the context of being best suited to the position
(c) consider all the information before the selection panel, rather than rely or focus on one aspect of the process, such as interview performance

(d) incorporate referee checks and pre-employment checks as appropriate and required
(e) be consistent with the obligations set out in chapter 2 of the Act relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion.

Referee checks

9.12    At a minimum, referee checking must be conducted for the applicant determined to be best suited to the position, including where a process is used to fill a recurring vacancy under clause 8.19 and where a decision is made to directly employ someone without advertising a vacancy under clause 8.16.
…
9.15    Referees must provide an honest account of an applicant’s performance and workplace conduct relevant to the role.
…
         Documentation and decision-making requirements
9.17    The selection panel must clearly document the process undertaken and the reasons why the proposed successful applicant was determined to be best suited to the position.
9.18    In approving employment of a person, the decision maker must be satisfied that the selection panel has selected the person best suited to the position, and where applicable, the selection process complies with the Act and this directive.
9.19    The approved selection documentation must also include a declaration from the decision maker that identifies any actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest in relation to the process, including the applicant determined to be best suited to the position or the absence of such.
…
11.     Dealing with adverse information
11.1    A chief executive may obtain information that is adverse to the interests of a person’s employment as a public sector employee, including by way of referee checking and pre-employment checking (adverse information).
11.2    Where adverse information may adversely affect a selection decision, the chief executive must:
(a) comply with the procedural fairness requirements in the directive relating to suitability for employment, where the adverse information is obtained by way of screening conducted under that directive, or
(b) provide the adverse information to the person and invite them to make submissions about the adverse information prior to the chief executive deciding whether the person is to be employed (including where the information is obtained by way of referee checking or pre-employment checking that is not conducted under the provisions of the directive relating to suitability for employment).

11.3 A chief executive must comply with the directive relating to suitability for employment when deciding about employment in consideration of adverse information obtained by way of screening under that directive.
11.4 When adverse information is obtained through referee checking and/or pre-employment checking that is not conducted under the provisions of the suitability for employment directive, in making a decision about employment in light of the adverse information, a chief executive must consider:
(a) the nature and timeframe of the adverse information and its relevance to the nature of the duties to be performed, any response provided to the chief executive by the person or the person’s representative in accordance with clause 11.2(b), and

(b)     whether the adverse information impacts on the person’s suitability for the role.
11.5    Where adverse information is relied upon in a way that impacts a selection decision, the information and factors considered must be documented and included as part of the selection report documentation. If relevant, this documentation may occur by way of a human rights assessment undertaken in accordance with the HR Act.
12.     Post-selection matters
Feedback
12.1    All applicants are to be advised that they may request feedback from the selection panel. In cases of graduate program applicants, this requirement only extends to applicants who were interviewed.
12.2    Applicants who request feedback must receive timely, specific and constructive feedback from a member of the selection panel. The mode of feedback is at the discretion of the panel member providing feedback, and must be reasonable in the circumstances.
Notification of employment
12.3    The following employment or secondment decisions must be published:
(a) employment of senior executives or senior officers from an advertised vacancy

(b) employment of a public sector executive from an advertised vacancy
(c) promotion of a permanent public sector employee from an advertised vacancy, including through use of the recurring vacancy provision
(d) employment of a person as a public sector employee on a permanent basis from an advertised vacancy, including through use of the recurring vacancy provision

(e) transfer or secondment of a public sector employee from an advertised vacancy.
12.4 Notice of the employment or secondment decisions provided for in clause 12.3 must be published within one month of the decision:
(a) for a public service entity, in the gazette, or
(b) for a public sector entity that is not a public service entity, on the entity’s public facing website, or in another way approved by the Commissioner.

12.5    For a publication under clause 12.4(b), the information published must specify the date of the publication, for purposes of determining the time limit to start an appeal.
13.     Appeals
13.1    A person may appeal against a promotion decision under section 131(1)(e) of the Act and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the directive relating to appeals.
13.2    An appeal may not be made against a directive decision under section 131(1)(b) of the Act where it is in relation to a decision:
(a) to fill a vacancy as an identified role, the process for assessment and the decision about whether the mandatory attribute is held or not held
(b) about recruitment and selection, unless it is a decision not to:
(i) employ an employee requiring placement because they are assessed as unsuitable

(ii) employ a public service employee because of their disciplinary history.

Conclusion

The Commission may only set aside a promotion decision if they find that the recruitment or selection process was deficient. In determining whether there was such a deficiency, the Commission must consider whether the recruitment and selection process complied with the PS Act, a regulation or a directive of the commission chief executive.
For the reasons explained above, I have found that the promotion decision was not fair and reasonable. The selection process conducted by the Department was deficient, as it did not comply with the Recruitment and Selection Directive and relevant principles contained in the PS Act.

I acknowledge that the impact of this Decision will also be felt by Ms Alysha Morgan, the advertised successful candidate for the promotional position as gazetted, through no fault of her own. The Selection Panel's inattention to the express requirements of the selection process to be undertaken, pursuant to the Recruitment Directive, will unfortunately result in both a period of professional uncertainty for each of the three shortlisted applicants and the key position of Clinical Midwife (Rotational) Nurse Grade 6(1) remaining unfilled. Having acknowledged the 'human impact' of this Decision, the Act and Directive prescribe mandatory terms to be complied with. I am required to determine findings on the various appeal grounds on that basis alone.
The appeal is upheld.
I order accordingly.

Order:

1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the promotion decision appealed against is set aside.
2. The matter is returned to the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS) with a copy of this decision.

3. I direct that, within one month, the chief executive of THHS is to revoke the appointment of Ms Alysha Morgan to the position of Clinical Midwife (Rotation) Nurse Grade 6(1) classification, Job Ad Reference TV583145, and publish a gazette notice that the appointment is revoked.
4. I direct that a new selection panel is to be formed, for the purposes of selecting an applicant for the vacant position of Clinical Midwife (Rotation) Nurse Grade 6(1) classification, Job Ad Reference TV583145 ('the vacant position') and that the new selection panel must not include:
· Ms Honey Newman, Midwifery Unit Manager, Maternity Women's and Children's Service Group;
· Ms Chloe Woods, Acting Clinical Midwifery Consultant Birth Suite, Women's and Children's Service Group; and

· Ms Leanne Windsor, Clinical Project Officer, Support Service Department.

5. The new selection panel must be provided with a copy of ss 42 -46 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) and Public Sector Commission Directive 07/23: Recruitment and Selection.

6. The chief executive is to continue the recruitment and selection process for the vacant position from the point immediately after the selection of shortlisted applicants for interview. The shortlisted applicants in the resumed selection process shall comprise the three shortlisted applicants in the process subject of this appeal (should they wish to continue to be considered for the vacant position):

· Ms Alysha Morgan
· Ms Tina Meynell

· Ms Courtney Risdale / McGuire

[2025] QIRC 268

9 October 2025