Thomson v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

The matter before the court involved a teacher employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) who was initially suspended without remuneration following charges under the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 and Crimes Act 1900. After being acquitted of all charges, the Department decided to extend the suspension without remuneration. The teacher appealed this decision, arguing it was not fair and reasonable. The court was tasked with determining whether the decision to extend the suspension without remuneration was appealable, and if it was fair and reasonable.

The primary legal issues revolved around the scope and application of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) and Directive 16/20, particularly in the context of alternative working arrangements and the decision-maker's authority. The Appellant contended that the decision-maker lacked the authority to extend the suspension without remuneration, as required by Directive 16/20. Additionally, the Appellant argued that the decision-maker failed to consider all reasonable alternatives before suspending the Appellant and did not provide adequate reasons for not exploring alternative office-based positions. The Appellant further argued that the decision to extend the suspension was incompatible with human rights and not in the public interest.

The court considered the principles of unreasonableness and fairness as set out in relevant case law, focusing on whether the decision was so unreasonable that it lacked intelligent justification. The court noted that the decision to extend the suspension without remuneration did not adequately address the available alternative options and that the reasons provided were insufficient. The court found that the decision-maker did not have the authority to extend the suspension without remuneration as required by Directive 16/20, and that the decision was not fair and reasonable. Consequently, the decision to extend the suspension without remuneration was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh review in accordance with the relevant directives and statutes.

The final orders of the court included allowing the appeal, setting aside the decision of 13 June 2022, substituting it with a decision that the Appellant be returned to suspension on normal remuneration, and directing the Respondent to reimburse the Appellant for the normal remuneration he had been deprived of. The decision-maker was also required to conduct a fresh review of alternative duties and provide adequate reasons within 21 days from the release of the decision.