Peacey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) - [2022] QIRC 381

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION: PARTIES:	Peacey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2022] QIRC 381 Peacey, Matthew (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	PSA/2022/693
PROCEEDING:	Public Service Appeal – Appeal against a conversion decision
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2022
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Pidgeon IC On the papers
OUTCOME:	1. The decision of 22 July 2022 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	PUBLIC SERVICE – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SERVICE APPEAL – where the appellant requests appointment to higher classification level – where the appellant was not appointed due to genuine operational requirements of the department – whether the decision was fair and reasonable
LEGISLATION:	Directive 13/20 Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level cls 4, 6, 7, 8 Industrial Relations Act 2016 cl 562C Public Service Act 2008 ss 25, 98, 149C, 194
CASES:	Francis v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2022] QIRC 138 Hansen v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2021] QIRC 162 Jacks v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2021] QIRC 102 Nangit v State of Queensland (Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy) [2021] QIRC 038

Reasons for Decision

Appeal details

Mr Peacey (the Appellant) has been employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) as a permanent AO6 Program Coordinator within the Toowoomba Youth Justice Service Centre since 11 May 2015.[1]
[1] Respondent's submissions filed 15 August 2022 [8].
The Appellant has been performing higher duties in the role of an AO7 Principal Community Services Officer (PSCO) within the Office of the Youth Justice Regional Director in the South West Region of the Department since 15 July 2019, with his contract set to expire on 30 June 2023. During this time, the Appellant has taken several authorised absences to perform another role of a higher classification, namely an AO8 Manager position in the Office of the Regional Director.
On 15 July 2022, Mr Peacey wrote to the Department by email requesting appointment at the higher classification level of a PCSO. Mr Peacey's request stated:
Hi Kiara,
Thanks for the chat earlier.
Could I please ask you to progress on my behalf this written request to the Chief Executive for conversion to permanent tenure in my current role at the Office of the Regional Director under Public service Commission Directive 13/20 (referencing section 149C of the Public Service Act and associated sections).
I commenced acting in the role on 15/07/2019 and was the selected candidate in a formal recruitment and selection process in October 2019. I have since occupied the position in between acting in higher duties within the same office. Please let me know if you require anything further in this matter. Thanks.
…
On 26 July 2022, Ms Kiara Malley, A/Manager, Office of the Regional Director, South West Region, responded to the Appellant's email advising that his request…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peacey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth...

Details

AGLC: Peacey v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2022] QIRC 381
Case: [2022] QIRC 381
Decision Date: 6 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved an appeal by an employee of the Queensland Government against a decision by the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs. The appellant, Peacey, sought an appointment to a higher classification level within the public service. The Department had declined to make the appointment, citing genuine operational requirements. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had the authority to review the decision under the Public Sector Management Act 1994. The Tribunal's role was to determine whether the Department's decision was fair and reasonable.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to appoint the appellant to a higher classification level was justified by genuine operational requirements. The Tribunal had to consider the criteria set out in the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and assess whether these criteria were applied appropriately by the Department. Specifically, the Tribunal examined whether the decision was based on factors relevant to the operational needs of the department and whether the decision-making process was fair and reasonable.

In delivering its decision, the Tribunal found that the Department had a genuine operational requirement that justified not appointing the appellant to the higher classification level. The Tribunal concluded that the decision was made in accordance with the relevant legislative framework and was both fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the Department's justification for its decision. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Department.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the appeal by the appellant was dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed that the decision of the Department was lawful and that the appellant's request for appointment to a higher classification level was not upheld. The Tribunal's decision stands as a clear affirmation of the Department's authority to make decisions based on genuine operational requirements within the public service framework.

Orders