Mocnik & Others v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

The Mocnik case involved several applicants, who were employed by Queensland Health, against the State of Queensland, the respondent. The applicants sought reinstatement following their dismissal for refusing to comply with Health Employment Directive 12/21 (HED 12/21), which mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare workers. The applicants argued their dismissals were unfair under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), and also raised questions about whether HED 12/21 was inconsistent with the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) and/or Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and whether the respondent had obligations to consult under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld).

The court considered several legal issues, including whether HED 12/21 was about 'conditions of employment' within the meaning of section 51A of the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (HHB Act). The court found that HED 12/21 was a lawful and reasonably practicable control measure to manage risks arising from the pandemic. The court also determined that none of the issues raised by the applicants would render the dismissals unfair for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). The court found that HED 12/21 did not constitute indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) as it was a reasonable measure in the context of the pandemic. The court further held that the respondent had no obligation to consult with the applicants individually or with their representatives prior to implementing HED 12/21. The court concluded that the respondent had met its obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) by implementing HED 12/21 as a control measure.

The court will hear the parties on the appropriate form of orders which reflect these reasons.