Sainty v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2)

In the case of Sainty v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (No. 2), the respondent was employed as a Dental Assistant at the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, and was required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in accordance with Health Employment Directive No 12/21. The respondent was not granted an exemption and was directed to be vaccinated. After failing to comply with the direction, the respondent was invited to show cause why a disciplinary finding should not be made against her for not complying with the direction and why she should not be suspended without remuneration. The respondent appealed against the decision to suspend her without remuneration, arguing that the decision was not fair and reasonable.

The court was required to determine whether the decision to suspend the respondent without remuneration was fair and reasonable. The respondent submitted that her matter was raised to a Stage 3 grievance, which should have resulted in a more thorough investigation and consideration of her case. However, the court found that the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors, including the public interest and the respondent's role as a Dental Assistant in a hospital setting. The decision-maker also considered alternative arrangements for the respondent, but found that they were not feasible or appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the decision-maker's decision was fair and reasonable, and confirmed the decision to suspend the respondent without remuneration.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the respondent had chosen not to follow the requirements of the Health Employment Directive No 12/21 Employee COVID-19 vaccination requirements, despite the availability of a safe and reliable COVID-19 vaccination program. The court also found that the respondent's role as a Dental Assistant in a hospital setting required her to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to promote the health and wellbeing of herself, her colleagues, and the patients under the care of the Health Service. The court further found that alternative duties, or a temporary transfer, or other alternative working arrangement were not available or appropriate in the circumstances, given the respondent's substantive role and the need to ensure the safety of healthcare workers, support staff, their families, and the patients under their care.

In conclusion, the court confirmed the decision to suspend the respondent without remuneration, finding that it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The court found that the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors and had made a decision that was in accordance with the law and the evidence before them. The court also found that the respondent's submissions did not provide sufficient grounds to overturn the decision-maker's decision. The court's decision highlights the importance of following public health directives and the need to protect healthcare workers, support staff, their families, and the patients under their care during a pandemic.