Servin v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)
[2025] QIRC 275
•16 October 2025
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: PARTIES: | Servin v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2025] QIRC 275 Servin, Craig Ronald v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) |
CASE NO: | PSA/2025/148 |
PROCEEDING: | Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a disciplinary decision |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 October 2025 |
DATES OF | Notice of Appeal (28 July 2025) Respondent's submissions (12 August 2025) Appellant's submissions in reply (28 August 2025) Respondent's submissions in reply (4 September 2025) |
| HEARD AT: | On the papers |
MEMBER: | Pidgeon IC |
| ORDERS: | The order contained in paragraph [116] of these reasons for decision. |
CATCHWORDS: | PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY –PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – where the Appellant appeals the disciplinary findings decision – where the Appellant submits that procedural fairness was deficient throughout the process – where the Respondent submits that the Appellant was given procedural fairness – where the Appellant alleges that the Respondent breached his privacy – where the Appellant submits that the decision-maker had an apprehension of bias – where the grounds of appeal have not been made out – where the decision appealed against is confirmed |
LEGISLATION AND | Code of Conduct cls 1.5, 3.1 Directive 05/23 – Discipline cl 7 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562C(1)(a) Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 91, 93, 94 |
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
On 24 July 2025, following a show cause process, Mr Craig Servin ('the Appellant') received a decision on discipline findings ('the decision letter') arising from his former employment with the Office of Industrial Relations, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning ('OIR DSDIP', 'the Respondent'). That decision informed Mr Servin that two allegations against him had been substantiated and that both gave rise to grounds for discipline.[1] The decision concludes by referring the matter of determining what disciplinary action should be taken against Mr Servin to his current employer, Department of Transport and Main Roads ('DTMR').[2]
[1] Pursuant to s 91(h) and s 91(b) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act').
[2] Pursuant to s 94 of the PS Act.
Allegation One is that '(b)etween 28 November 2024 and 17 December 2024, [Mr Servin] engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional communications using [his] departmental email account'. Allegation Two is that '(b)etween 29 November 2024 and 13 January 2025, [Mr Servin] participated and/or engaged in inappropriate communications with a number of [his] co-workers'. The particulars of the allegations had been provided to Mr Servin in the show cause notice.
Mr Servin's Appeal Notice states that he accepts the factual basis of the findings set out in the decision. However, Mr Servin appeals the decision on the following bases:
1. Procedural unfairness and improper initiation
2. Breach of privacy and use of potentially unlawful evidence
3. Bias and failure of Deputy Director-General Donna Heelan to recuse herself as decision-maker
4. Disregard for mitigation and rehabilitation
5. Malicious conduct and influence from OIR Executive Director Ms Sarina Wise
6. Improper use of the Public Interest Disclosure ('PID') provisions by Director of Ethical Standards, Mr Gavin Gleeson.
7. Denial of procedural fairness regarding key evidence
8. Personal harm and isolation
Mr Servin calls for the decision to be reviewed to determine whether the 'action taken' was fair and reasonable. Mr Servin says that he seeks a revocation or a reduction of the 'disciplinary action imposed' consistent with the principles of natural justice, proportionality, and procedural fairness.
Mr Servin does not deny the conduct subject of the matter. The Respondent notes that in his show cause notice, Mr Servin said the following:[3]
I unreservedly acknowledge that my conduct between November 2024 and January 2025 fell below the standard expected of a Queensland public sector employee. I regret that my words and actions, even in a private setting, contributed to a workplace environment that was disrespectful and unprofessional. I accept the impact this had not only on OIR colleagues and leadership but also on the broader public service's integrity.
[3] Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 12 August 2025, [9].
Mr Servin says that from the outset, he has accepted responsibility for the conduct and is committed to reform. Mr Servin says that:[4]
The respondent expressly describes the 24 July 2025 decision as a "discipline findings decision", not a penalty decision. The delegate's jurisdiction was therefore confined to determining whether the conduct occurred and whether it was a ground for discipline under s 91 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (PSA). Despite this limited remit, the decision goes far beyond, engaging in commentary and conclusions amounting to character attack and reputational destruction.
[4] Mr Servin's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 28 August 2025, [2].
As the conduct has been admitted and no disciplinary action has been taken, the question before the Commission is whether it was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to determine that the conduct gives rise to grounds for discipline as determined.
I have found that the decision was fair and reasonable. The decision on disciplinary findings is confirmed.
Consideration
I have considered the submissions of the parties as they relate to each of Mr Servin's grounds of appeal. I note the Respondent's submission that with the exception of the eighth ground of appeal, Mr Servin's grounds of appeal involve matters that were not put before the delegate for consideration.[5]
Grounds 1 and 2
[5] Respondent's submissions (n 3) [6].
Ground 1: Procedural Fairness and Improper Initiation
Mr Servin's first ground of appeal is stated as follows:[6]
The investigation commenced without a formal complaint, legitimate public interest disclosure (PID) or documented grievance. The disciplinary action was triggered by a post-exit forensic review of my computer, which appears to have been conducted as a speculative fishing expedition. No lawful or policy basis has been cited for this review, and no notice was given to me at the time and the action appears maliciously targeted and biased against me. The complaint came after analysis of the information obtained resultant of the fishing expedition.
[6] Mr Servin's Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 28 July 2025, 14.
Ground 2: Breach of Privacy and Use of Potentially Unlawful Evidence
Mr Servin's second ground of appeal is stated as follows:[7]
Material used in the disciplinary process was obtained through an unauthorised search of my work computer, likely in breach of the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld). There is no indication that proper safeguards under IPPs 1 and 4 were met. This undermines the legitimacy of the entire disciplinary process. Indeed the initial email to my workgroup was to set up a review of an unpopular decision which we (the work unit) wanted to initially provide a submission to that decision maker and ultimately, if unsuccessful, to appeal through this commission, which is a lawful process. The email and subsequent text messages sent to private mobile phone numbers (obtained through questionable legal basis and likely unlawfully obtained) clearly points this out. However, this has been ignored and interpreted as mutinous conduct.
[7] Ibid.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent addresses Grounds One and Two together in its written submissions.
The Respondent submits that Mr Servin's allegations that the discipline process was improperly instigated and that the Respondent breached the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) ('the IP Act') are misconceived.
The Respondent says that the circumstances in which it became aware of his now admitted inappropriate conduct is ultimately irrelevant in that upon being made aware of the conduct, it was appropriate that it be investigated and addressed.[8]
[8]AW v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2021] QIRC 036, [39].
The Respondent submits that while ICT devices are provided to employees during their employment as tools to enable them to undertake their roles, these devices are the property of the Department, as is the information held on them. The Respondent says it is reasonable that communications on such devices or the use of ICT tools is subject to scrutiny.[9]
[9]Dawson v State of Queensland (Department of Primary Industries) [2025] QIRC 164, [47]-[51].
The Respondent rejects any suggestion that the information was accessed illegally and says that the text message information was obtained via a forensic download following a PID and that this was set out in the material provided to Mr Servin during the show cause process.
The Respondent notes that these matters were not raised by Mr Servin in his response to the Opportunity to Respond ('OTR') submitted by his legal representative or in his response to the Notice to Show Cause ('NTSC').
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin says that the Ethical Standards Report records that the matter was classified as a PID on 21 February 2025, more than a month after his separation from the Respondent. Mr Servin notes that a forensic contractor extracted private text messages from personal devices on 23 February 2025. Mr Servin says this demonstrates that the process was not triggered by a contemporaneous complaint but by a 'retrospective and speculative search'.[10] Mr Servin says that OIR failed to act compatibly with his right to privacy under s 25 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Mr Servin says that he was not afforded '… clarity on how the allegations arose or why management action was not considered'.[11]
[10] Mr Servin's submissions (n 4) [10].
[11] Ibid [14].
Mr Servin says that cl 7.2 of the Directive 05/23 – Discipline requires the Chief Executive to assess a number of matters before commencing a disciplinary process and says that no such assessment is documented. Mr Servin says 'this failure amounts to non-compliance with a mandatory procedural pre-condition written for procedural fairness'.[12]
[12] Ibid [11].
Mr Servin accepts that the Commission has found that departmental ICT records are the property of the employer and may be scrutinised, however he says that reasoning does not extend to 'forensic extraction of private communications from personal devices, undertaken without consent after separation from OIR'. Mr Servin says that 'ownership of ICT systems does not confer a licence to intrude into personal data'.[13]
[13] Ibid [12].
Mr Servin submits that the collection and use of evidence was unlawful under the IP Act and says that the forensic download of private text messages was taken from personal devices and not departmental ICT property. Mr Servin says that s 28 of the IP Act requires that collection of 'personal information by a public entity be lawful, directly related to a function of the agency, and necessary for that function'.
Mr Servin says that OIR has provided no justification to demonstrate that the 'intrusive forensic extraction of private messages' was 'necessary' or proportionate to any lawful function. Mr Servin also says that the IP Act requires that at, or before the time of collection, the individual be informed of the purpose and authority for the collection. Mr Servin says he was never notified prior to or at the time of the forensic access and that he only learned of it later in a redacted form in the investigation material. Mr Servin says the failure to inform him breached the IPAct and deprived him of an opportunity to challenge the lawfulness or proportionality of the collection.
Mr Servin says that '(t)aken together, Grounds 1 and 2 'show the process was fatally misconceived from the outset'.[14]
[14] Ibid [17].
Respondent's submissions in reply
The Respondent reiterates its previous submissions as to the commencement of the investigation and notes that Mr Servin appears to misunderstand the obligations under the Directive 05/23 – Discipline.
The Respondent says that any suggestion that the Respondent was precluded from looking into his conduct after he changed employment is fundamentally flawed and further, that this is recognised by the existence of s 94 of the PS Act. The Respondent also says that a decision to commence a disciplinary process is a separate and distinct decision to that of making enquiries or undertaking an investigation.
The Respondent also notes that the conduct subject of the allegations were brought to its attention as a result of a PID, placing a positive onus on the Respondent to take action. The Respondent says that information provided as part of the disclosure triggered the decision to seek further information, and that this was subsequently provided to Mr Servin through the OTR and the NTSC.
Consideration – Grounds 1 and 2
I accept that once the Respondent was in receipt of a complaint or a PID it was obliged to act. I accept that information provided to the Respondent caused it to seek further information. The Respondent was not precluded from acting on the matter in circumstances where Mr Servin no longer worked for the Department. It was entirely open to the Respondent to review the contents of Mr Servin's work computer. It is uncontroversial that the computer and its contents are the property of the Respondent.
With regard to the messages Mr Servin says were made from a private mobile phone and were forensically downloaded from such, there is no information before me to suggest that this was done improperly. I assume the messages were not downloaded from Mr Servin's private mobile phone without his permission, as he has not said this was the case. The messages were sent from and between Mr Servin and his colleagues, related to work matters, and in some way through a forensic search of some device, ended up in the possession of the Respondent. Messages are only private until they are shared or found, this is why well-worn phrases such as, 'Write everything as though it will be read out in court' are so often shared in workplaces.
In fact, the particulars relating to Allegation 1 include that on 28 November 2024 at 7.22am, Mr Servin sent an email from his departmental email account titled 'Early Christmas greetings'. The content of that email is set out at paragraph 8 of the Show Cause Notice and states:
Good morning all and season's greeting – albeit a little early!
Merry Christmas!
I apologise for the title in this email, but is the paranoid pessimist in me. Purpose of the title is so that anyone who scans our email coms will hopefully keep scrolling. I don't trust them and know they (the executive management) can request from IR every keystroke done on our computers.'
…
So, with this in mind we do not want to forecast any punches to forewarn topside (Executive management and the most appropriate G-rated I could produce for this email) of what we are doing…
1.………sorry to be cryptic but I'm assuming this email will be read and passed on topside. My meaning will become apparent later using secure comms.
3.We need to accept that EVERY email communication including this one/Text messages and even phone call (I acknowledge Topside cannot listen in to our conversation, but critical intel can be gained by our phone traffic by viewing our phone records – which they have access to). I know this sounds very left field paranoia, but we need to be extremely disciplined moving forward not forecast any tactic/idea which will be used by topside to inch off and parry our tactics.
4. Can I suggest a central point for ideas on our submission moving forward using private comms? A suggestion might be downloading and using the SIGNAL app using our private phones. (Dave, I know you don't have a private mobile, but we can work around that). If we go this way, whatever you do, DO NOT try to download the app using a work phone for obvious reasons. I suggest we work this out today…
5.……
·…Keep any conversation you have about this strictly within this email group.
…
·ACCEPT and believe that every OIR communication we have amongst ourselves will be read by topside or at the very least, will be briefed up – including this email and any response – so I suggest – not responding to this email…
AND: For anyone reading this email who is not in the email address above – shame on you! But please be careful crossing these wet roads in Brisbane today and remember to look left, then right, then left again!'
As Mr Servin's email demonstrates, he was well aware that his communications, and those of others, may be subject to search and scrutiny. Without more than Mr Servin's own suggestions of the lawfulness or otherwise of the collection of the messages, I do not find that this ground of appeal renders the decision unfair or unreasonable.
I understand that Mr Servin may have been dissatisfied with consultation processes regarding proposed changes to his work unit and that he was seeking to discuss a response to this with his work group. I also understand Mr Servin's distress that messages he thought were private, have been made available to his previous Department and have become evidence upon which discipline findings have been made against him.
However, there is nothing in the matters Mr Servin has raised in relation to Grounds 1 and 2 of his appeal that persuades me that these matters, which were not before the decision-maker or raised in Mr Servin's responses, made the discipline findings arising from his admitted conduct not fair and reasonable. Appeal grounds 1 and 2 are dismissed.
Ground 3
Mr Servin's third ground of appeal is stated as follows:[15]
The decision-maker, Deputy Director-General Donna HEELAN, had a prior adversarial history with me stemming from a 2015/16 union-related matter involving another employee I assisted and advocated for. Her involvement created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Her written findings included sweeping statements that were not based in fact, critical of my character and dismissive of my mitigation, suggesting a lack of impartiality.
[15] Appeal Notice (n 6) 15.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent rejects the contention that Ms Heelan has a conflict of interest resulting in appreciable bias. The Respondent says that Mr Servin has provided no information as to the nature of the alleged adversarial history between himself and Ms Heelan.
Regarding Mr Servin's submissions about Ms Heelan's written findings, the Respondent says that the findings clearly set out Ms Heelan's consideration of the information and evidence available to her, including Mr Servin's response.
The Respondent says that Mr Servin did not raise concerns regarding Ms Heelan's delegation or the possibility of bias. The Respondent says that Mr Servin's contention of bias is predicated on his dissatisfaction that Ms Heelan did not accept his response to the NTSC. The Respondent says that Ms Heelan's role was to consider and weigh the evidence and electing not to accept Mr Servin's submissions is not evidence of bias.
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin says that the disciplinary process did not include readily available evidence that provided critical context. Mr Servin says that emails between himself, Ms Sarina Wise and Mr Dave Fletcher in January 2025 show that a decision to disband the unit was made without management arrangements in place and was communicated to staff in a restrictive and adversarial manner. Mr Servin says that the presentation framed the closure as a fait accompli. Mr Servin says that there are other emails which demonstrate the effect this had on staff morale and on Mr Servin's mental health.
Mr Servin says the other emails were in the Respondent's possession but were omitted from the material considered. Mr Servin says that when HR emailed him on his return from leave about the out-of-office message he had placed on his email, they informed him that Mr Gleeson from the Ethical Standards Unit had advised there was no basis to investigate. Mr Servin says that a failure to look at other materials creates the appearance of an outcome-driven process rather than a fair and impartial investigation.
Mr Servin says that this omission is particularly serious as the Respondent knew that he no longer had access to his email account. Mr Servin says that the Respondent knowingly deprived him of the chance to have his explanation tested against corroborating evidence.
Respondent's submissions in reply
The Respondent says that Mr Servin had ample opportunity during the OTR and the NTSC processes to provide any context or material he thought was important or relevant, including identifying material held in the Respondent's records which he knew about. The Respondent says that Mr Servin's failure to do so does not render the decision unreasonable.
The Respondent also says that the decision clearly shows that consideration was given to the reasons advanced by Mr Servin as explaining his conduct. That the delegate did not accept that the context absolved Mr Servin of liability does not mean the decision was unfair.
Consideration – Ground 3
Mr Servin does not appear to have raised concerns about Ms Heelan's role as decision-maker throughout the disciplinary process. Mr Servin has not provided any detailed information or evidence in support of his submission that Ms Heelan's involvement in the matter gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
I have reviewed the material pertaining to the discipline process. I am satisfied that Mr Servin had every opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and that if he was aware of material that should have been considered, it was open to him to put that information before the decision-maker.
The decision-maker ultimately concluded that the conduct, which has been acknowledged and admitted by Mr Servin to be inconsistent with the expectations of a Queensland public servant, gave rise to disciplinary findings. On Mr Servin's own analysis of events in his letter of 29 June 2025, he says that his actions were 'poorly judged', that he expressed his concerns 'in a way that was sarcastic, pessimistic, or undermining', that the text messages he sent were 'unprofessional and clearly disrespectful', that he caused offence and 'hurt, embarrassment and discomfort'. That the decision-maker ultimately expressed a view that Mr Servin had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his admitted conduct, is not, without more, demonstrative of bias.
I have considered Ms Heelan's commentary throughout the decision. In circumstances where Ms Heelan's role was to consider the conduct, make determinations and provide reasons for her findings, it is unsurprising that she makes statements that Mr Servin may consider critical of him and dismissive of the mitigating circumstances he raises. Such statements are not unusual in a decision which establishes a breach of the Code of Conduct ('the Code') or misconduct as defined in s 91(5)(b) of the PS Act. The third ground of appeal is dismissed.
Ground 4
Mr Servin's fourth ground of appeal is stated as follows:[16]
Despite acknowledging the conduct itself, assisting in the process by voluntarily providing a full written response (also accepting the conduct, but placing in context to the time it occurred), I submitted comprehensive mitigation including an apology, post conduct training records, reflective journal, referee reports, and a voluntary performance improvement plan. These were largely dismissed or minimised with conclusions drawn that were unfairly critical and inconsistent with the principle of natural justice and in direct conflict with the premise of Public Service Directive 05/23 – Discipline.
[16] Ibid 15.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent submits that Mr Servin's entire appeal appears predicated on an assumption that his admissions, alleged mitigation and self-assessed rehabilitation absolve him from liability from the disciplinary findings. The Respondent says that this is a misunderstanding of the basis on which discipline findings are made.
The Respondent says that in circumstances where Mr Servin admitted the conduct, the delegate was required to consider whether the conduct provided grounds for discipline. The Respondent says that the delegate clearly set out the consideration of the information and evidence before her, including Mr Servin's response submissions addressing mitigation and rehabilitation and why she considered grounds for discipline had been established.
The Respondent says it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to determine that the stressors Mr Servin says he was experiencing and his 'venting' did not provide mitigation for liability for discipline grounds.
The Respondent submits that the provision of a post-conduct apology or 'rehabilitation' does not preclude a finding that the conduct occurred nor that it constitutes grounds for discipline.[17]
[17]Waite v State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) [2024] QIRC 144, [61].
The Respondent says that Mr Servin has failed to provide any explanation as to why he believes the decision should be set aside and simply makes broad statements that his mitigation and rehabilitation evidence was not accepted or was minimised. The Respondent says that this does not demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable.
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin says that his show cause response was not a 'mere explanation but the only contemporaneous probative evidence before the delegate of my intent and state of mind' and that in context, the text messages themselves are 'inherently ambiguous [and] capable of multiple interpretations'.[18] Mr Servin says that the delegate's decision to give no meaningful weight to his response amounted to a prejudicial exclusion of the only 'probative material' on the central issue. Mr Servin says that the Briginshaw[19] principle requires serious adverse findings be supported by clear and cogent evidence rather than speculation.
[18] Mr Servin's submissions (n 4) [22].
[19]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 ('Briginshaw').
Mr Servin says that procedural fairness required that, if the delegate doubted his account, that those doubts be sent back to him for clarification. Mr Servin says that instead, the delegate adopted her own subjective interpretation of text fragments, without 'confronting me with those adverse inferences'. Mr Servin says this deprived him of a fair opportunity to respond to the reasoning relied upon in making the findings.
Respondent's submissions in reply
The Respondent rejects Mr Servin's submission that his show cause response was 'contemporaneous' evidence of his intent when engaging in the substantiated conduct. The Respondent says that the response was not contemporaneous and was submitted post-event after Mr Servin had been formally notified of concerns regarding his conduct. The Respondent reiterates that Mr Servin's response was considered when determining whether discipline grounds existed and says that the reasons set out in the decision make this clear.
Consideration – Ground 4
The matters Mr Servin has raised as 'mitigating' factors will more properly be considerations for the delegate determining what, if any, disciplinary action to take arising from the disciplinary findings. I am satisfied that the decision-maker considered Mr Servin's explanation that he was 'venting' and experiencing various stressors at the time of the conduct. I am also satisfied that it was open to the delegate to determine that those matters did not provide a reasonable excuse for the conduct.
Mr Servin understood the allegations against him and provided an OTR and a response to the Show Cause Notice regarding disciplinary findings. I do not accept that those responses are 'contemporaneous probative evidence' supporting the mitigating factors he nominates. Mr Servin's responses were prepared some months after the conduct, after he became aware of the concerns and allegations regarding his conduct and with the benefit of reflection and an understanding of the seriousness of the matter.
I disagree that it was incumbent upon the decision-maker to send matters back to Mr Servin for clarification after considering his show cause notice. While it is open to a delegate to clarify anything in a show cause response that is not clear, procedural fairness does not require a continuing back and forth between the parties where the delegate must present their findings to the subject officer in draft and consider feedback on those findings.
Mr Servin appears to be of the view that by accepting the conduct, once it was raised with him, providing an apology and explanation for the conduct and rehabilitative actions he has taken to correct his conduct such that the matter should have been brought to an end and no disciplinary finding made. While this was one potential outcome, that the delegate determined that it was appropriate to make a disciplinary finding does not make the decision unfair or unreasonable. Mr Servin's fourth ground of appeal cannot be upheld.
Ground 5
Mr Servin's fifth ground of appeal is stated as follows:[20]
My former OIR Executive Director, Ms Sarina WISE, appears to have initiated or encouraged the forensic investigation of my email account after I had already left the unit. There was no formal complaint made. Her conduct during my time in the business unit, including discouraging my requests for transfer and providing information factually wrong that I could not transfer laterally back to my previous work unit, suggests an underlying motive to pursue disciplinary action without a legitimate basis.
[20] Appeal Notice (n 6) 15.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent rejects any contention that the Executive Director has had any input or influence in the decision of the delegate in making the discipline findings and reiterates its submissions regarding Grounds 1 and 2. The Respondent also says that Mr Servin did not raise this ground in his responses throughout the process.
The Respondent also notes that Mr Servin has not provided any information or evidence to support his serious assertions against Ms Wise. The Respondent says that Ms Wise is the person about whom Mr Servin's admitted conduct was directed and that where there is a lack of supporting information or evidence, Mr Servin's submissions appear to be a continuation of his inappropriate portrayal of Ms Wise.
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin's reply submissions do not further address his contentions regarding Ms Wise's input or involvement in the discipline process.
Consideration Ground 5
In the absence of any information or evidence to support Mr Servin's contention that Ms Wise initiated or encouraged the search of his email account after he had left the agency, and that she did this with some alleged underlying motive, this ground of appeal cannot be made out and is dismissed.
Ground 6
Mr Servin's sixth ground of appeal is stated as follows:[21]
The Director of Ethical Standards, Mr Gavin GLEESON, appears to have relied on PID provisions to shield the referral source and avoid scrutiny of the improper initiation. If no valid PID existed, the use of PID legislation to justify or protect the process was inappropriate and obstructed procedural fairness. Of note, there does not appear to be any public interest disclosure by definition and no person appears to have voluntarily come forward to make a defined public interest disclosure. Further, my conduct fully analysed does not meet the conduct subject to public interest disclosures, weaponizing the PID process, making it inappropriate and an overreach of authority designed to isolate me from my former peers and my current friends. My first and only notification of the process was in a mention of this in a cover email under the hand of (Mr) GLEESON at the commencement of my involvement in the process which does not appear to comply with the administrative requirements for PID's.
[21] Ibid 15.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent submits that Mr Servin's contentions that it has misused the PID provisions are without merit. The Respondent submits that the right to procedural fairness required Mr Servin to be provided with sufficient information to understand and respond to the allegations against him and for the decision to be made by an impartial decision-maker.[22]
[22]Directive 05/23 – Discipline.
The Respondent says that Mr Servin had ample opportunity through the OTR and NTSC process to understand and respond to the allegations and notes that prior to lodging this appeal, Mr Servin did not contend that he was not being afforded procedural fairness.
The Respondent repeats its prior submissions that the delegate was impartial and has clearly documented their considerations in making the discipline finding.
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin submits that the disciplinary process was compromised by the involvement of Deputy Director-General Donna Heelan and says that due to a prior professional history and conflict, her decision demonstrated bias in that she disregarded his exemplary work history and framed her conclusions in a way that undermined his honesty and commitment as an investigator, qualities he says are central to his role.
Mr Servin says that Ms Heelan's role as decision-maker was a failure which compounded the evidentiary defects he has already addressed and 'reinforces the picture of a process structurally incapable of producing a fair outcome'.[23]
[23] Mr Servin's submissions (n 4) [31].
Respondent's submissions in reply
The Respondent says that Mr Servin failed to raise any concerns about an apprehension of bias relating to Ms Heelan throughout his response to the OTR and the NTSC processes. In any case, the Respondent rejects any contention that the decision-maker was biased. The Respondent says that the delegate's assessment of his response and the decision not to accept his explanation as mitigation for liability as set out in the decision letter, does not demonstrate bias, rather it demonstrates that she carefully considered the evidence before her.
Consideration – Ground 6
It appears from his Appeal Notice that Mr Servin is concerned that the complaint or matter subject of the disciplinary finding being given PID status has meant that he has been denied procedural fairness in the disciplinary matter.
I have reviewed all the material and Mr Servin has been afforded procedural fairness. The allegations were made clear and have been particularised. The content of the emails and messages forming the basis of the allegations is known to him. Mr Servin has had an opportunity to consider the material and respond to it. I cannot see that the PID status of the matter has 'obstructed procedural fairness'.
Mr Servin's submissions regarding Ms Heelan appear to have been made in response to the Respondent's submission that the procedural fairness afforded to Mr Servin included that the decision was to be made by an impartial decision-maker. It does not appear that Mr Servin raised concerns about Ms Heelan's role as delegate for the matter until after the decision was made.
While Mr Servin refers to a previous interaction or conflict he had with Ms Heelan some years earlier in his role as a union delegate, he has not put forward any information or evidence to demonstrate that Ms Heelan was biased in her decision making. Ms Heelan made findings that Mr Servin's conduct was unacceptable. I have reviewed the decision and Ms Heelan's analysis of the matters before her. I am satisfied that she has properly considered Mr Servin's submissions and provided reasons for the conclusions she reached regarding Mr Servin's conduct. Without more evidence, I do not accept Mr Servin's submissions regarding Ms Heelan.
Ground six, as it relates to an alleged misuse of the PID process and to later submissions that Ms Heelan was not an impartial decision-maker are dismissed.
Ground 7
Mr Servin's seventh ground of appeal is stated as follows:[24]
I was never interviewed regarding the meme file that formed the basis of one allegation. The investigation relied on second-hand interpretations. This omission breaches fundamental principles of procedural fairness. (Ms) HEELAN has been critical of my referee reports in her findings stating I had disclosed confidentiality to others and she then discounted those important documents. This is a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice and ignores the premise of Public Service Directive 05/23 – Discipline where my work history must be considered.
[24] Appeal Notice (n 6) 16.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent says that this ground of appeal is misplaced and that procedural fairness required a right to understand and respond to the allegations, there is no requirement that this be provided through an interview. The Respondent says that Mr Servin was provided with an opportunity to understand the allegations against him and to provide responses. The Respondent says that it was open to Mr Servin to provide his interpretation of the meme and that the fact he did not do so does not provide grounds for disturbing the delegate's findings.
The Respondent submits that Mr Servin did disclose his disciplinary matter to others by way of his actions in seeking referee reports and undertaking his self-instigated 'performance improvement plan'. Notwithstanding this, the Respondent says that the delegate's concerns about confidentiality are not a discipline ground.
The Respondent says that Mr Servin's work history was taken into account and that this is reflected in the delegate's considerations of whether allegation two constituted misconduct. Further, the Respondent says that Mr Servin appears to be conflating the discipline findings with the factors that a delegate must consider when determining discipline action.
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin submits that the 'implied penalty' is 'manifestly excessive' when considered against both the nature of the conduct and the established principles applied by the Commission. Mr Servin says that he accepted responsibility and that the delegate 'failed to apply the requirement that penalties be proportionate, corrective in purpose, and consistent with past outcomes'.[25]
[25] Mr Servin's submissions (n 4) [32].
Mr Servin then goes on to make submissions about the purpose of discipline action and circumstances where disciplinary actions have been deemed disproportionate or reduced where the employee shows remorse, insight and long service, despite admitted conduct. Mr Servin also goes on to submit that the delegate gave little weight to what he says are critical mitigating factors such as his 42 years of unblemished service, demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation and the absence of any reputational damage. Mr Servin says the delegate ignored mitigation and has imposed a sanction effectively designed to end his career. Mr Servin says that the Commission can have no confidence that the penalty represents a fair and balanced weighing process.
Respondent's submissions in reply
The Respondent says that Mr Servin's submissions regarding any 'implied penalty' are fundamentally flawed and that any decision on discipline action has been referred to DTMR for consideration in line with the PS Act.
Consideration – Ground 7
Mr Servin's submissions regarding discipline action, discipline penalties or implied discipline penalties are misguided. No disciplinary action has been proposed or decided. Mr Servin's submissions about the purpose of public sector disciplinary action, proportionality and so on should be included in his response to any show cause notice on disciplinary action he is presented with by TMR.
It was open to Ms Heelan to find that Mr Servin had not followed the direction given to him to keep matters confidential. This is because Mr Servin canvassed colleagues for referee statements in support of him in this disciplinary process and asked a colleague to supervise his self-imposed performance improvement plan.
There is no evidence before me that Ms Heelan discounted the referee statements Mr Servin provided as a part of his show cause response. The seventh ground of appeal is dismissed.
Ground 8
Mr Servin's eighth ground of appeal is stated as follows:[26]
The process, including the way it was initiated and handled, has caused me significant emotional distress and reputational damage. I have been isolated from my professional network within OIR, and relationships with supportive former colleagues and friends have been severed, which has adversely affected my self-worth and emotional well-being.
[26] Appeal Notice (n 6) 16.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent acknowledges that participation in the disciplinary process may cause distress but says that this does not render the disciplinary process unfair or unreasonable.[27]
[27]Spence v State of Queensland (Queensland Ambulance Service) [2022] QIRC 266, [87].
The Respondent submits that Mr Servin has failed to provide any information as to how the handling of the process has rendered the delegate's decision unfair or unreasonable.
The Respondent says that any reputational damage Mr Servin may experience arises from his own conduct, both the subject of the substantiated allegations and his decision to disclose the discipline process to colleagues or other parties. The Respondent says that this is not a ground to disturb the delegate's findings.
The Respondent says that Mr Servin has failed to demonstrate any basis upon which his response to a reasonable process which arose because of his admittedly highly inappropriate conduct was not fair or reasonable.
Mr Servin's submissions in reply
Mr Servin says that the delegate's authority was to determine whether the allegations of misconduct were substantiated and that this authority does not extend to 'making determinations about penalty, reputational impact, or adverse findings as to his honesty of professional standing. Mr Servin says that those matters are properly for the delegate to determine at the penalty stage. Mr Servin says that the delegate has exceeded their authority by making findings that his conduct damaged the reputation of OIR, characterised him as dishonest, vindictive and unfit for office, and discounting his mitigation and rehabilitation material. Mr Servin says that the delegate has committed a jurisdictional error as the delegate has made findings beyond their power.
Respondent's submissions in reply
The Respondent says that Mr Servin's submissions rely on misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of the obligations of a delegate under the PS Act.
Consideration – Ground 8
Mr Servin has found the process emotionally distressing. That alone does not render a decision resulting from a procedurally fair process not fair and reasonable.
I agree with the Respondent's submission that any reputational damage to Mr Servin has either resulted from his own conduct or is the result of him sharing details of the matter with the people he asked to act as referees or support him in his self-devised performance improvement plan. Reputational damage suffered by Mr Servin resulting from a procedurally fair process does not render the decision unfair or unreasonable.
Mr Servin has submitted that the delegate's authority did not extend to 'making determinations about penalty', however, the delegate has made no determination about penalty. While reputational damage may result from the decision, there is nothing in the decision itself that leads to a conclusion that the decision-maker has exceeded her authority in making her findings.
Ms Heelan was required to consider all the evidence available to her and provide the reasons why she came to the conclusions that she did. Mr Servin may disagree with Ms Wheelan's characterisation of his conduct and actions, but this does not, without more, make the decision not fair and reasonable.
Ms Heelan's consideration of Allegation 1
The matters captured within Allegation 1 included: the email canvassed above at paragraph [29] of these reasons for decision, where Mr Servin actively seeks to enlist colleagues to undertake covert communications with an intent to prevent senior leaders from having access to information about workplace matters; email correspondence where Mr Servin forwards sensitive information received from the Executive Director in which Mr Servin makes allegations that the Executive Director was targeting him; and creating an out of office reply where he states the closure of an organisational business unit despite that information being inaccurate.
Mr Servin admits to the conduct captured within Allegation 1. It was necessary for Ms Wheelan to determine whether that conduct provides grounds for discipline, in particular with regard to Allegation 1, whether the conduct contravened cls 1.5 and 3.1 of the Code. Clause 1.5 requires demonstration of a high standard of workplace behaviour and personal conduct. Clause 3.1, 'Commit to our roles in public service' involves adherence to the policies, organisational values and organisational documents of the employment authority.
Ms Heelan said that while appreciating that Mr Servin had acknowledged the conduct, she did not accept his characterisation of the conduct as a 'lapse in judgment or isolated incident'. Ms Heelan provided detailed reasons for that finding. This included that the conduct occurred over a period of weeks, was deliberate, repeated a theme of disrespect towards senior leaders and that he had sought to involve others. Ms Heelan also found that contemporaneous records demonstrated that in setting the inaccurate out of office message, Mr Servin acted in a manner intended to cause issues for the Executive Director and that he boasted about this to his colleagues. Ms Heelan also noted that instead of utilising available channels for support to escalate concerns in a situation where Mr Servin was distressed about proposed organisational changes, he chose a course of action intended to circumvent engagement.
Ms Heelan's decision noted that Mr Servin is an experienced public servant and a senior member of the Agricultural Unit. Ms Heelan says that with regard to Allegation 1, she is satisfied that Mr Servin's conduct was 'disrespectful to your colleagues and senior leaders and inconsistent with your obligation for ethical and responsible use of ICT Resources'. Ultimately, Ms Heelan found that the allegation was substantiated and gave rise to grounds for discipline pursuant to s 91(1)(h) of the PS Act.
I am satisfied that it was entirely open to Ms Heelan to make that finding. Mr Servin also accepts that his conduct fell below the expected standard. Mr Servin's communications and actions related to Allegation 1, were disrespectful to colleagues and senior leaders and inconsistent with the Standards of conduct set out at cl 1.5 of the Code. Mr Servin's use of ICT resources related to Allegation 1 was not ethical or responsible. It was fair and reasonable for Ms Heelan to find that Allegation 1 gave rise to grounds for discipline under s 91(1)(h) of the PS Act.
Ms Heelan's consideration of Allegation 2
The task before Ms Heelan regarding Allegation 2, was to determine whether the conduct Mr Servin had already admitted to provides grounds for discipline in that Mr Servin has been guilty of misconduct within the meaning of s 91(5)(b) of the Act. That definition relates to inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously and adversely on the public sector entity in which the person is employed.
As is set out on page 4 of the decision, Allegation 2 is summarised as follows:[28]
[28] Appeal Notice (n 6), decision letter dated 24 July 2025, [19].
19. Allegation Two can be summarised as arising from the following events:
a. a series of messages to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 29 November 2024 in which you:
i.reflected on a discussion with colleagues about bombarding an OIR human resources employee with "inane HR requests".
ii.advised your desire to bombard the Director, Office of the Executive Director, CFS (Director, OED) with requests;
iii.encourages others to purport to seek a transfer with the intent of forecasting a loss of confidence in your leaders and with creating "HR nightmares";
iv.on-shared screen shots of communications with your Executive Director;
v.on-shared pictures of your emails with the Director OED, where you referenced having free reign to make statements in an affidavit if there was no recording of a meeting to contradict you and stated you sent the email because you do not like the Director, OED;
vi.on-shared that you had been advised someone who became aware you were returning to a role was contemplating self-harm, describing this situation with a series of exclamation points;
b. a series of messages to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 3 December 2024 in which you:
i.described the Executive Director's decision to invite the Director, OED to a meeting as "crook" and criticising the Executive Director for your belief of how she perceived your team;
ii.responded to a message from a colleague regarding data as a "stitch up from her", ostensibly referring to the Executive Director;
c. a series of messages to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 13 December 2024 in which you:
i.sent a Jabba the Hut meme, ostensibly about the Executive Director, captioning it "Just sitting back on a Friday afternoon, guzzling a vat of chardy, eyeing off the hapless beast she's about to swallow whole, thinking about the human detritus and carnage she's caused during the week…and thinking…life is good at the top!";
ii.reacted with laugh emojis to a series of responses from your colleagues responding to your above message with comments of endorsement or encouragement;
iii.expressed your desire for a meteor to hit 'her' (ostensibly about the Executive Director) and contended that the size of the required meteor would destroy the planet;
d. a series of messages to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 17 December 2024 in which you:
i.encouraged your colleagues to view your out of office message (refer Allegation One) because it would give them "a laugh" and expressed a view that your Executive Director would be "choking" about it;
ii.you sent a '70s Show Meme with captioned "When someone at work asks me how i'm [sic] doing today" overlayed with the quote, "If I was a bird I'd fly into a ceiling fan" and commenting, "Sorry! Saw this and had to share!";
e.a message to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 20 December 2024, in which you described the decision to retain the Agricultural Unit was your Executive Director conceding defeat;
f.a series of messages to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 13 January 2025 in which you:
i.replied to a message from a colleague show (sic) a picture of the Grim Reaper overlayed with the words "ALL THOSE IN FAVOR [sic] OF BITCH SLAPPING STUPID PEOPLE SAY…HELL YES!!' by stating variously:
·'HELL YES! I'm closest so if I get everyone's proxy I will bitch flog her for everyone!'
·'Are you allowed to use a piece of 4x2 with rusty nails projecting out the slapping end. Hate to use my hand and accidentally miss, hit her arse and lose my arm!'
and ostensibly referring to your Executive Director as 'her'.
ii.responded with a laugh reaction to an image depicting a person in a blonde wig holding a handbag, with the overlayed text, 'When you died but You [sic] don't have anymore sick days so you got to go to work"
iii.responded to a message from a colleague asking to be part of the 'bitch slapping' by stating 'Of course mate. The more the merrier"
g.a message to a group chat with OIR colleagues on 14 January 2025 where you described your handover meeting as resulting in you knowing what a "sacked worker" and "criminal" feel like.
Ms Heelan specifically acknowledges that an allegation of misconduct is particularly serious and, with reference to Coleman,[29] requires a conclusion that there has been a deliberate departure from accepted standards, serious negligence to the point of indifference, or an abuse of the privilege and confidence enjoyed by a public service employee.
[29]Coleman v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2020] QIRC 32 ('Coleman').
Ms Heelan refers to Mr Servin's response and sets out some analysis of the material and consideration of Mr Servin's response. Ms Heelan concludes that for Mr Servin to characterise the above behaviours as simply a lapse in judgment or a poor attempt to vent is disingenuous. She goes on to note that the conduct occurred while Mr Servin was a Principal Inspector with OIR, undertaking a role where he is responsible for ensuring safe and healthy workplaces. Ms Heelan found that the conduct was inconsistent with what was expected of Mr Servin as a public servant who holds core responsibilities for safe and healthy workplaces. Ms Heelan concluded that in the circumstances, she was satisfied that Mr Servin's conduct represents a deliberate departure from accepted standards.
I am of the view that such a characterisation of Mr Servin's conduct was open to Ms Heelan. The matters subject of Allegation 2 did not occur on only one or two occasions as may happen in the circumstances of a temporary lapse of judgment. It may be that in sending the messages, Mr Servin was 'venting', however Mr Servin is a very experienced employee and it is reasonable to expect that he understood such 'venting' was not appropriate.
I conclude that on any reading of the content of the message thread Mr Servin was involved and contributed to, that conduct was improper and inappropriate. The conduct certainly had the capacity to reflect seriously and adversely on the public sector entity in which Mr Servin was employed. Mr Servin was a Principal Inspector with the Office of Industrial Relations. He was tasked with ensuring safe and healthy workplaces. The message exchange, undertaken in a private capacity but amongst work colleagues included body-shaming and encouragement of gendered violence toward women in leadership roles.
It was fair and reasonable for Ms Heelan to find that the conduct subject of Allegation Two gave rise to grounds for discipline pursuant to s 91(1)(b) of the PS Act in that Mr Servin was guilty of misconduct, meaning 'inappropriate or improper conduct in a private capacity that reflects seriously and adversely on the public sector entity in which he was employed'.[30]
[30] s 91(5)(b) of the PS Act.
Ms Heelan turned her mind to the task before her and worked through Mr Servin's responses and the available evidence. Ms Heelan provided detailed reasons for her decision. I cannot identify any part of the decision where Ms Heelan has exceeded her authority or jurisdiction.
The findings Ms Heelan made were open to her on the basis of the available material and Mr Servin's submissions.
The eighth reason for appeal cannot succeed.
Conclusion
Mr Servin admits to the conduct subject of the discipline findings decision. Mr Servin has not persuaded me that: the process has been procedurally unfair, was improperly initiated, involved unlawful evidence or breaches of privacy, involved a biased decision-maker, disregarded his responses, was characterised by malicious conduct on the part of the Executive Director or involved improper use of PID provisions.
I accept that the process has been distressing for Mr Servin and that he is distressed at the potential impact on his professional reputation arising from the findings. However, these matters do not make the decision unfair or unreasonable.
I find it was fair and reasonable for Ms Heelan to determine that Allegation One gave rise to a ground for discipline pursuant to s 91(1)(h) of the PS Act and that Allegation Two gave rise to a ground for discipline pursuant to s 91(1)(b) as it relates to the definition of misconduct in a private capacity set out at s 91(5)(b).
It was also fair and reasonable for Ms Heelan to refer the matter to DTMR for consideration of discipline action pursuant to s 94 of the PS Act. It will be appropriate in that process for Mr Servin to raise his submissions regarding the purpose of public sector discipline, proportionality, the performance development and rehabilitation he has voluntarily undertaken.
Order
I make the following order:
1.Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), I confirm the decision appealed against.
0
4
0