State of Queensland (Department of Education) v Johnston

The State of Queensland (Department of Education) appeals against a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) which found that Benjamin James Johnston, a school teacher, was entitled to reimbursement of remuneration for the period he was suspended without pay. The dispute arose from Mr Johnston's suspension and subsequent acquittal of criminal charges, leading to his claim for unpaid wages. The State contends that the Department of Education's Directive 06/23 Suspension exempts Mr Johnston from reimbursement under clause 10.5, which applies where an employee is not "available for work" during suspension. The State argues that Mr Johnston was not available for work due to his suspension and, therefore, not entitled to reimbursement. The central legal issues before the court were whether the definition of "available for work" in clause 10.5 of the Directive is limited to the purpose for which the employee was employed and whether the Department could have provided alternative roles for Mr Johnston during his suspension. The court found that Mr Johnston was "available for work" because he was present and ready to work during the suspension period. The Directive's clause 10.5 exception did not apply as it was not established that Mr Johnston was unavailable for work for reasons other than his suspension. The court further noted that the possibility of alternative roles did not affect Mr Johnston's entitlement to reimbursement since he was otherwise ready and willing to perform his regular duties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the QIRC's decision that Mr Johnston was entitled to reimbursement for the period he was suspended without pay.