QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)
[2025] QIRC 269
•10 October 2025
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: PARTIES: | QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 269 QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) |
CASE NO: | PSA/2025/182 |
| PROCEEDING: | Public Sector Appeal – Suspension without pay decision |
DELIVERED ON: | 10 October 2025 |
DATE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: | Appeal Notice (9 September 2025) Respondent's submissions (26 September 2025) Appellant's submissions in reply (2 October 2025) |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | Pidgeon IC On the papers |
| ORDER: | The orders contained in paragraph [64] of these reasons for decision. |
CATCHWORDS: | PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – where the Appellant is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) – where the Appellant is charged with a criminal offence relating to alleged conduct at the workplace – where the decision-maker determined to suspend the Appellant without remuneration – where the Appellant appeals the suspension without remuneration decision – where the appeal is dismissed – where the decision appealed against is confirmed |
LEGISLATION AND | Directive 06/23: Suspension cls 7.3, 8.2 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B(3), 562C(1) Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 101 |
| CASES: | Colebrook v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 53 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume (No. 3) [2024] ICQ 3 |
Reasons for Decision
On 19 August 2025, QR[1] was informed that he would be suspended without remuneration in accordance with s 101(4) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'). QR has appealed that decision ('the suspension without remuneration decision'). The question before me is whether the suspension without remuneration decision was fair and reasonable.[2]
[1] I ordered that the identity, workplace and location of QR be suppressed from publication in QR v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 249.
[2] s 562B(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act').
For the reasons which follow, I find that the decision was fair and reasonable.
The decision appealed against
The decision of Mr Adam Lavis, Chief People and Partnerships Officer, Metro South Health ('the decision-maker') sets out a relevant background:
Background
On 5 June 2025 you were invited to show cause why you should not be suspended without remuneration in accordance with section 101(4) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) (the Act) (Attachment 1). I acknowledge your response dated 11 June 2025 (Attachment 2), provided via your legal representative.
On 22 July 2025, you were provided with a Notice to Show Cause (NTSC1), which outlined 2 (two) allegations and the particulars of those allegations made against you. In summary, the allegations are as follows:
·It is alleged that on 13 May 2025, while on duty in the Children's Inpatient Unit at [REDACTED] you engaged in physical contact of a sexual nature with, [REDACTED] the mother of paediatric inpatient [REDACTED]
·It is alleged that on 16 May 2025, you failed to notify Metro South Health of being charged with an indictable offence, as required under section 73 of the Public Sector Act 2022 and Queensland Health HR Policy E4 – Notification of Criminal Charges and Convictions (Attachment 3).
On 29 July 2025, Metro South Health received written confirmation from the Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO) that this matter has been referred for formal investigation under section 84 of the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Attachment 4).
On 5 August 2025, the OHO took immediate registration action by suspending your registration effective from 5 August 2025. The suspension means that you are prohibited from practising as a nurse for the duration of the suspension (Attachment 5).
On 12 August 2025, your representative Mr Jay Vianage provided a response to the NTSC1 (Attachment 6).
The decision-maker then summarises QR's response to show cause on suspension without remuneration:
· That the criminal charge is strongly denied and you rely on the presumption of innocence.
· You further outlined that the allegation is yet to be tested through a court process and that no adverse finding has been made against you.
· You further submit that your failure to notify Metro South Health of the charge should be viewed in context, as you believed the service was already made aware.
· You highlight your otherwise unblemished record, your longstanding service to Metro South Health, and raise concern regarding the financial impact of a suspension without remuneration on your ability to support yourself and fund your legal defence.
The decision-maker provides reasons for the decision on suspension without remuneration on pages 2 and 3 of the letter. The decision-maker says that he has considered all material before him, including QR's response. The decision-maker informs QR that in accordance with s 101(4) of the PS Act, he reasonably believes that QR is liable to discipline under a disciplinary law in relation to the alleged sexual assault.
The decision-maker notes that s 101(3) of the PS Act requires him to give consideration to alternatives that may be available to QR before making a decision to suspend. In addressing this matter, the decision-maker says:
…However, due to the nature of your substantive role as a Clinical Nurse involving direct care to vulnerable paediatric patients and contact with members of the public, and given the clinical setting in which the allegations are said to have occurred, I am satisfied that there is no alternative role that would adequately mitigate the risk to patients, members of the pubic, the organisation, or its reputation. Further, any reassignment (even to non-clinical functions) would still likely involve access to staff-only and patient care areas, and exposure to staff, clients, or families. Accordingly, I do not consider there to be any safe or suitable alternative duties available to you.
The decision-maker then turns to the factors set out in cl 8.2 of Directive 06/23: Suspension ('the Suspension Directive') which must be considered when deciding that normal remuneration is not appropriate during suspension. The decision-maker says:
Having regard to the factors set out at clause 8.2 of the Suspension Directive, I have considered the following:
·You have been charged with one count of rape under section 349 of the Criminal Code. The charge relates to alleged conduct that occurred during the course of your employment and involves a member of the public. This is a serious matter and has significant implications for patient safety, community trust and the reputation of Metro South Health.
·On 5 August 2025, the Office of the Health Ombudsman suspending your nursing registration under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. This action, which is entirely outside the control of Metro South Health, legally prevents you from performing the inherent requirements of your role as a Clinical Nurse or providing any nursing care in Queensland. There are no suitable alternative duties available that would mitigate the operational and reputational risks in these circumstances.
·Your failure to notify the service of the criminal charge, as required under section 73 of the Public Sector Act 2022, raises concerns regarding your compliance with statutory and ethical obligations as a public sector employee.
·I am not satisfied having regard to public interest and the significant risk to organisational reputation, that it is appropriate for you to continue to receive public funds while suspended from duty in these circumstances.
·I have given careful consideration to your submission regarding the financial impact of a decision to suspend you without pay. However, I do not consider this factor sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, the suspension of your registration, and the associated public interest concerns. The Act and the Suspension Directive allow for suspension without normal remuneration in certain circumstances; in my view, the circumstances currently applying to your case are exactly those in which such action is appropriate.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 101(4) of the Act and given the serious nature of the alleged conduct, the lack of alternative duties, and the risk to the organisation and the public should you continue to receive remuneration during suspension, I consider it fair and reasonable to impose a suspension without remuneration. The public interest in protecting patient safety, maintaining organisational integrity, and managing public resources responsibly outweighs the individual impact in this case.
The decision-maker goes on to outline QR's appeal rights, employee assistance and support available, the Respondent's contact person for QR, lawful directions regarding the matter, potential limitations on QR's human rights, the monitoring and periodic review of his suspension and where to address any questions about the matter.
QR's Reasons for Appeal
On 9 September 2025, QR filed an appeal against the decision of the decision-maker to suspend him without remuneration. In Schedule A to his Appeal Notice, QR provides a background to the matter, including his dealings with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Office of the Health Ombudsman. The decision-maker also provides a summary of QR's response to show cause regarding the suspension without remuneration, this is set out at paragraph [4] above.
QR says that the decision is not fair and reasonable on the basis that the decision fails to properly consider s 101(3) of the PS Act and cls 7.3 and 8.2 of the Suspension Directive.
Section 101(3) of the PS Act – consideration of all reasonable alternatives
QR contends that the decision was not fair and reasonable because the decision-maker did not consider all reasonable alternatives as required under s 101(3) of the PS Act. QR says that the decision-maker limited his consideration of 'reasonable alternatives' to his clinical role, rather than considering alternative duties outside of his established role, as required.
QR says that the decision-maker did not consider 'a change in location where the employee performs duties', namely any working from home roles and that if he did, QR contends that those roles would not, as stated in the decision, 'likely involve access to staff-only and patient care areas, and exposure to staff, clients, or families' and that the decision-maker has not provided particulars as to how this conclusion was reached.
Clause 7.3 of the Suspension Directive
QR says that the decision fails to consider alternative duties outside of his established role and his usual place of work. Further, QR says that the decision does not 'properly document and provide me details of what duties or other options had been identified and considered, including any reason why I could not have performed alternative options…'.
Clause 8.2 of the Suspension Directive
QR says that the decision-maker did not take into account the financial impact on his family and the broader public interest in him remaining on suspension with remuneration. QR says that insufficient weight was given to the financial and psychosocial impacts of the decision in circumstances where his family will incur significant financial hardship as they rely on his income for essential needs such as food, housing, education and care for his young children.
QR says that insufficient weight was given to the financial impact of the decision on his ability to fund his criminal defence.
QR says that it is unfair and unreasonable for the decision-maker to decide that public funds should not be used to continue suspending QR on normal remuneration to enable him to continue to provide for his family where he is defending allegations which originated from his place of work.
With reference to Colebrook,[3] QR says that the decision-maker did not give appropriate weight to the significant financial hardship he would suffer if suspended without remuneration.[4]
[3] Colebrook v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 53.
[4] Ibid [55]–[57].
Submissions
The Respondent
The Respondent notes that the specifics of the allegation against QR are a police matter. For the purposes of this public sector appeal, however, the Respondent outlines the complaint broadly alleged is that the complainant went to the toilet and that when she opened the door QR was standing there. The complainant alleges that they had a shower, and then on exiting the shower, QR placed his hands between her legs and inserted his finger in her vagina before stopping abruptly and saying that he did not want to get in trouble. The Respondent says that the Appellant was on shift and working at the time of the alleged offending. The Respondent also states that the complainant was supported in progressing her complaint by two other parents of patients in the Children's Inpatient Unit.
The Respondent submits that it was informed of the charge by the Queensland Police Service and that QR did not notify the Respondent that he had been arrested and charged with an indictable offence as required by s 73 of the PS Act.
The Respondent goes on to set out some of the background of the matter. I will not address those matters here as they are sufficiently set out above.
The Respondent says that the decision was made lawfully and was reasonably open to the decision-maker and should not be disturbed.
I will set out the Respondent's submissions with regard to each of the reasons QR says the decision was not fair and reasonable.
Section 101(3) of the PS Act and cl 7.3 of the Suspension Directive – Consideration of all reasonable alternatives
The Respondent notes that before suspending an employee, a decision-maker must turn their mind to whether any alternative duties are available for the employee to perform. The Respondent says that in making the initial decision to suspend QR, the decision-maker turned his mind to the alternative duties available to QR, including whether it would be appropriate for QR to work from home. The Respondent says that the decision-maker outlined the reasons that those alternatives were deemed not available in the initial suspension letter dated 19 May 2025:
Before making a decision to suspend you, I considered all alternative duties that may have been available for you to perform. I have considered whether it is appropriate for you to work from home, however due to the nature of your clinical role and the gravity of the allegations raised, I have determined that it is not appropriate for you to perform remote work at this time. Due to the sexual nature of the inappropriate conduct alleged, I have determined at this time it is not appropriate for you to perform alternative duties in lieu of suspension.
The Respondent says that in deciding to suspend QR without pay, the decision-maker again outlined their consideration of alternative duties including non-clinical duties and the reasons that alternative duties were not available, including reputational risk to the Respondent and risks posed to patients and other staff of the Respondent who QR would engage with in alternative duties.
The Respondent notes that it has a number of duties which broadly require it to protect its employees from psychosocial harm and sexual harassment. The Respondent submits that it was open to the decision-maker to find that the alternative duties did not sufficiently mitigate the risk posed by QR to others, to the extent that they could be comfortable that others were not at risk.
Clause 8.2 of the Suspension Directive
The Respondent notes that the Suspension Directive provides some guidance at clause 8.2 as to circumstances where suspension without pay may be appropriate. The Respondent says that with regard to both cls 8.2(a) and 8.2(b), the decision was reasonably open to the decision-maker in the circumstances. Clause 8.2 states the following:
8.2 Having regard to the nature of the discipline in accordance with section 101(4)(b) of the Act, the circumstances in which a chief executive may decide a public sector employee is not entitled to normal remuneration for the period of the suspension of the employee are limited to where:
(a)there are factors not within the control of the agency that are preventing the timely conclusion of the discipline process, for example if there are criminal charges and the investigation or discipline process is pending the outcome of these charges; or
(b)it is otherwise fair and reasonable to suspend an employee without remuneration, taking into account the financial impact on the employee and the broader public interest of the employee remaining on suspension with remuneration.
The Respondent says that the evidence available to the decision-maker 'was sufficient to evince a belief (not a finding) that QR engaged in conduct which, if proven, would constitute misconduct'.[5]
[5] Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 26 September 2025 [36].
The Respondent says it does not need to be satisfied that QR engaged in criminal conduct or to rely on the criminal standard of proof. The Respondent says that even if QR resolves his criminal proceedings, it holds significant concerns as to alleged workplace and professional misconduct on the part of QR which it would need to deal with.
The Respondent says that the decision-maker considered the public interest in QR remaining suspended on normal remuneration. The Respondent notes that the criminal proceedings are at a preliminary stage and may be protracted and that this is clearly a factor that contributes to the Respondent's capacity to conclude the suspension without pay matter in a timely fashion. The Respondent says that this goes to the reasonableness of the decision to suspend QR without remuneration and the public interest in the suspension on normal remuneration not continuing during protracted proceedings.
The Respondent submits that it is in the public interest for it to take appropriate action in relation to suspected unlawful conduct, especially where the alleged conduct concerns serious criminal charges of sexual assault against the carer of a paediatric patient.
With regard to the impact of the decision on QR, the Respondent says it is required to balance the efficient use of public resources with the personal impact on QR. The Respondent says that the public would find continued suspension on full remuneration to be unacceptable in consideration of the holistic circumstances of the matter. The Respondent notes that the public and many of the Respondent's staff are aware of the matters on foot as the criminal proceedings and the suspension on pay have been subject to media coverage.
The Respondent says that there is nothing precluding QR from accessing other employment during the suspension and notes that he already holds other employment. The Respondent says that while he cannot engage in nursing duties, QR is able to perform other roles in a business he owns. The Respondent also notes that QR is able to access his accrued leave entitlements and has been informed of this.
The Respondent submits that it did acknowledge the financial detriment to QR and that while this was relevant, it was not the primary consideration, and it was not given more weight than other factors. The Respondent says that, ultimately, the decision-maker determined that any financial detriment to QR did not outweigh public interest considerations.
QR's submissions in reply
Whether the decision-maker considered alternative duties
QR maintains that the Respondent has not complied with s 101(3) of the PS Act in making the decision to suspend him without pay.
While QR notes the Respondent's submission that it considered alternative duties available to the Appellant in making the initial decision to suspend him, QR says that in deciding to suspend him without pay, the decision-maker failed to consider all alternative duties available, including work from home duties.
The Appellant says that the decision-maker had an obligation to document and provide him with duties or other options that had been identified and considered, including reasons why he could not perform alternative options.[6] The Appellant says that while the decision-maker broadly outlined that he had considered 'suitable alternative duties', he did not provide any specific examples of what alternative arrangements were considered or provide sufficient reasons as to why QR could not perform those alternative duties, particularly in a work from home arrangement.
[6] With reference to Philp v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 219.
The Appellant refers to other decisions of the Commission which have addressed whether decision-makers have provided sufficient evidence that they considered reasonable alternatives to suspension.[7]
[7] The examples given are Bah v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 96 and Colebrook v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 053 [19].
Whether the decision-maker considered clause 8.2 of the Suspension Directive
QR acknowledges that the Respondent has obligations to manage public resources efficiently, however he submits that it also has an obligation to treat employees fairly and reasonably, and that the first obligation should not be elevated over the second. The Appellant notes a decision of the Commission which suggested that the effective use of public resources may involve a consideration of whether there is meaningful work that may be undertaken to yield some return on the payment of wages during a suspension.[8] QR argues that the Respondent could have utilised his skills in an administrative/projects working from home capacity, which would balance the public interest and the financial impact on him.
[8] Thomson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2022] QIRC 402 [63].
The Appellant refutes the assertion that consideration of the public interest outweighed the financial impact on him, particularly given that the criminal charge originated from workplace allegations which have not been substantiated.
QR says that the public interest is satisfied in circumstances where he has been suspended from duty and that the Office of the Health Ombudsman has suspended his nursing registration.
The Appellant refutes that he holds alternative employment. QR says that adverse media coverage has meant that he has been unable to obtain work and an income to support his family and that his wife's business has suffered reputational damage. QR says that this has led to an overall financial downturn and that he has been forced to step down as a director of the company and is no longer connected to the business. The Appellant says that the decision to suspend him without pay, along with adverse media coverage, has inhibited his ability to fund his defence in the criminal proceedings and provide for his family.
Consideration
The parties have made various submissions as to the meaning of 'fair and reasonable' in the context of a Public Sector Appeal.
In the context of public sector appeals, the words 'fair and reasonable' are to be given their ordinary meaning, in particular, that 'fair' means 'free from bias, dishonesty or injustice' and 'reasonable' means 'agreeable to reason or sound judgment'.[9]
Consideration of reasonable alternatives available to the employee pursuant to s 101(3) and cl 7.3 of the Suspension Directive
[9] State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume (No. 3) [2024] ICQ 3 [42] ('Hume').
Section 101(3) of the PS Act provides that before suspending the employee, the chief executive must consider all reasonable alternatives available to the employee. Clause 7.3 of the Suspension Directive provides further detail, requiring that the individual circumstances and facts of the matter be assessed on their own merits to determine whether there are reasonable alternatives available to the employee, whether it is reasonable to direct that alternative arrangements be undertaken or whether it is appropriate to suspend the employee.
I am satisfied that in considering whether there were reasonable alternatives available or whether it was appropriate to suspend the employee, the decision-maker had regard to the individual facts and circumstances of the matter as required by cl 7.3(a) of the Suspension Directive. The decision-maker refers to performing remote work. The decision-maker explains that this was considered and then provides the reason he formed the view that QR could not undertake that as an alternative option. Specifically, the decision-maker says:
I have considered whether it is appropriate for you to work from home, however due to the nature of your clinical role and the gravity of the allegations raised, I have determined that it is not appropriate for you to perform remote work at this time. Due to the sexual nature of the inappropriate conduct alleged, I have determined that at this time it is not appropriate for you to perform alternative duties in lieu of suspension.
As required by cl 7.3(b), the decision-maker considered alternative duties that were not part of an established role and might be undertaken remotely. As required by cl 7.3(c), the employer documented that working remotely from home had been considered and that the reason this was not appropriate was due to the nature of QR's clinical role, in addition to the gravity and sexual nature of the allegations.
QR contends that before suspending him without pay, the decision-maker needed to revisit whether alternative duties were available. I am of the view that s 101(3) of the PS Act was considered in the initial decision to suspend QR on normal remuneration. The decision to suspend QR without remuneration did not necessarily require a fresh consideration of alternative duties. However, in this case, the decision-maker did turn his mind to whether there were other suitable duties available, which I have canvassed at paragraph [6] of these reasons. QR was provided with clear reasons as to why the decision-maker deemed that there are no alternative duties 'that would adequately mitigate the risk to patients, members of the public, the organisation or its reputation'.
The decision-maker determined that there were no 'safe or suitable' alternative duties available. In circumstances where the alleged conduct is of a very serious nature and where, even if the criminal matter is resolved, there remain serious questions regarding QR's workplace conduct related to the allegations, it seems to me that it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to determine that there were no suitable alternative duties available.
QR contends that the decision-maker did not consider alternative duties outside of his established role. I disagree. It is clear from the decision that other duties, including non-clinical duties were considered and deemed inappropriate given the nature of the alleged conduct. The decision-maker also states that he holds concerns about QR's compliance with statutory and ethical obligations given that he did not notify the Respondent of the criminal charge as he was required to do under the PS Act.
I understand that QR is of the view that the Respondent could have created some project work or other activity for him to undertake at home. Firstly, while it is necessary for the decision-maker to consider all reasonable alternatives, the creation of a project or the allocation of work that is not necessary and the attendant supervision required while such work is undertaken may mean that such an alternative is not reasonable. Secondly, it appears that the decision-maker did consider such non-clinical remote tasks and deemed them not suitable or available on the basis of the nature of the alleged conduct, potential risks and the reputation of the organisation. Having determined in accordance with cl 7.3(a) of the Suspension Directive that it in the circumstances it was appropriate to suspend QR, I do not think it was incumbent upon the decision-maker to list every possible or potential remote or non-clinical role which may or may not exist and separately address why those roles were not available to QR.
Consideration of the factors set out in clause 8.2 of the Suspension Directive
The decision-maker addresses the matters set out in cl 8.2 of the Suspension Directive on page 3 of the letter, which has been canvassed at paragraph [7] of these reasons.
It is abundantly clear that the decision-maker considered the nature of the discipline matter. This was the basis upon which it was determined that suspension, rather than alternative duties was the appropriate course of action in this situation.
The decision-maker also considered the factors not within the control of the Respondent which prevent the timely conclusion of the discipline process. In this case, it is not controversial that the criminal proceedings are at an early stage and that the matter may not be resolved for some time. It is also the case that QR's nursing registration has been suspended and that this is also outside the Respondent's control.
QR contends that that the decision-maker has not properly taken into account the financial impact on him and weighed it appropriately against the broader public interest in him remaining on suspension with pay.
The decision-maker states that he has considered the financial impact on QR resulting from the decision to suspend him without pay. I further note that QR has been informed that he may access existing leave balances and that he is not precluded from seeking alternative employment during the suspension period. I understand that QR has made the choice to remove himself from the operation of the business he and his wife were operating and that he has experienced difficulty in seeking other work, however, he has continued to be paid his normal remuneration until the release of this decision. There is no evidence before me regarding QR's efforts to secure other employment.
I have had regard to Colebrook, which QR points to as a situation where the Commission determined that the decision-maker did not give appropriate weight to the financial hardship the employee would face. I note that in that matter, the Appellant was the sole provider for an infant child. It was also the case in Colebrook, that there were no external factors outside of the control of the employer preventing the timely resolution of any discipline process. I am satisfied that the circumstances in this matter differ to those in Colebrook.
It seems to me that the decision-maker explained to QR that the financial impact on him was not sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, the fact that his registration has been suspended and public interest concerns. It was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to determine that the circumstances in this case are akin to those envisaged by the PS Act and the Suspension Directive which allow for suspension without remuneration in particular situations.
QR submits that in addition to financial impact, the decision will have a psychosocial impact on his family as they rely on his income for essential needs. I accept that this may be the case, however, as the Respondent submits, it has a number of duties which require it to protect its employees from psychosocial harm and sexual harassment. In the circumstances of this matter, and given the nature of the alleged conduct, I find that it was reasonable for the decision-maker to give its duty to staff, patients and the general public more weight than any psychosocial impact on QR and his family.
QR has made submissions addressing the impact of the suspension on his capacity to defend the criminal charges against him, particularly in circumstances where the charges originated from allegations relating to his alleged conduct in his workplace. However, the PS Act and Suspension Directive do not specify that suspension without pay is only available in circumstances where the alleged conduct has occurred in an employee's private capacity.
Other matters
I am otherwise satisfied that QR has been afforded procedural fairness and an opportunity to show cause regarding the suspension without remuneration. He was informed of his appeal rights, has exercised those rights and the Respondent agreed to continue his suspension with remuneration pending the outcome of this appeal.
The decision-maker considered QR's human rights.
QR has been offered a contact person and access to the employee assistance program and support.
Conclusion
QR's reasons for appeal were that the decision-maker had not appropriately considered the relevant section of the PS Act and clauses of the Suspension Directive. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the decision-maker considered all reasonable alternative duties. I find that having considered the circumstances specific to this matter, that it was appropriate to suspend QR rather than provide him with alternative duties. I am further satisfied that the decision-maker considered the matters set out in cl 8.2 and that it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to suspend QR without remuneration having regard to those matters.
The decision was fair and reasonable. I make the following orders:
Orders:
1.Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed.
2.The undertaking given by the Respondent to the Commission on 11 September 2025 to stay the decision until this appeal is concluded is no longer required and the confirmed decision may be actioned upon release of this decision.
0
5
0