Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

In Tilley v State of Queensland (Queensland Health), the appellant, Tilley, appealed against a disciplinary decision made by the respondent, the State of Queensland, represented by Queensland Health. The appeal related to Tilley's suspension without pay due to his non-compliance with Health Employment Directive No 12/21, which required employee COVID-19 vaccinations. The respondent substantiated the allegation that Tilley did not comply with the directive and suspended him without pay. Tilley argued that the decision was unfair and unreasonable, claiming he had a fair and reasonable excuse for non-compliance, and that the directive itself was unreasonable. He further contended that the respondent did not consider alternative arrangements.

The court examined whether the respondent's decision to suspend Tilley was fair and reasonable under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld). The court noted that under section 137 of the Act, the chief executive must consider all reasonable alternatives before suspending an employee. The court found that the respondent had indeed considered alternative arrangements. Additionally, the court determined that the directive was reasonable, and the respondent had complied with the principles of natural justice and the relevant legislation. The court concluded that the decision was fair and reasonable, as the respondent had appropriately exercised their discretion in accordance with the law.

Based on the findings, the court confirmed the respondent's decision. The court held that the suspension without pay was justified and that the respondent had followed the correct procedures in making the decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.