Rossiter v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

The case of Rossiter v State of Queensland (Department of Education) involved an appeal against a decision to suspend the appellant, a Teacher Aide, without remuneration for non-compliance with Direction 1/22, which mandated COVID-19 vaccinations. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) was tasked with determining whether the decision to suspend the appellant was fair and reasonable. The appellant argued that the disciplinary action was unfair and unreasonable, while the respondent maintained that the suspension was justified given the appellant's failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction, which posed a risk to the health and safety of others.

The primary legal issues before the QIRC were whether the Employment Direction 1/22 was lawful and reasonable, and if the appellant's failure to comply with the Direction justified the disciplinary action of suspension without remuneration. The appellant contended that her health condition warranted an exemption from the Direction, but she did not apply for one, and therefore, the disciplinary action was unfair. The respondent argued that the Direction was necessary in response to a public health emergency, and the appellant, as a public servant, had a duty to comply with such directions.

The QIRC considered the appellant's submissions and found that the Employment Direction 1/22 was lawful and reasonable. The appellant had failed to provide an explanation or mitigating circumstances that would render the disciplinary action unreasonable. The Commission noted that the appellant's conduct in not complying with the Direction posed a risk to the health and safety of others, which was mitigated by her suspension. The Commission held that the disciplinary action was proportionate to the seriousness of the appellant's conduct and was thus fair and reasonable. Consequently, the QIRC declined to hear the appeal.

The final orders of the QIRC were that pursuant to section 562A (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the appeal would not be heard. This decision was based on the finding that the Employment Direction 1/22 was lawful and reasonable, and the disciplinary action taken against the appellant was justified given her non-compliance with the Direction. The QIRC upheld the respondent's decision, affirming that the suspension without remuneration was a fair and reasonable response to the appellant's conduct.