Sankey v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

In Sankey v State of Queensland (Department of Education), the appellant, Ms Sankey, challenged the disciplinary action imposed on her by the Department of Education. The disciplinary action was a reduction in her remuneration and a reprimand, following her failure to comply with the COVID-19 vaccination requirements as outlined in Employment Direction 1/21 and Direction 1/22. Ms Sankey argued that the disciplinary action was unfair and unreasonable, citing various reasons including the suspension without pay she had already endured and the public’s perception of the financial penalty as excessive. The Commission was tasked with deciding whether to proceed with the appeal or decline to hear it under section 562A(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commission should decline to hear the appeal and whether the disciplinary action imposed on Ms Sankey was lawful and reasonable. Ms Sankey argued that the vaccination direction was unlawful and unreasonable, claiming there was insufficient safety evidence for pregnant women and that her personal beliefs justified her non-compliance. The Commission had to consider whether these arguments had merit, given the extensive body of decisions finding the direction lawful and reasonable.

The Commission declined to hear the appeal, finding that Ms Sankey’s arguments lacked merit. It noted that the direction was widely upheld as lawful and reasonable in numerous prior decisions, and that Ms Sankey’s selective reliance on a singular Supreme Court decision was misguided. The Commission concluded that the decision-maker’s approach was fair and reasonable, and that the disciplinary action was proportionate and appropriate. Consequently, the Commission did not find it necessary to proceed with the appeal.