Youell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION PARTIES:	Youell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 241 Youell, Jennifer (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent)
CASE NO:	PSA/2025/129
PROCEEDING:	Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a fair treatment decision
DELIVERED ON:	8 September 2025
DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:	Appeal Notice (4 July 2025) Respondent's submissions (28 July 2025) Appellant's submissions (8 August 2025) Respondent's further submissions (18 August 2025)
MEMBER:	Pidgeon IC
HEARD AT:	On the papers
ORDERS:	1. The decision appealed against is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – appeal against a fair treatment decision – where the Respondent raises a jurisdictional objection – where the jurisdictional objection is not upheld – where the Appellant took two-days of leave without a sufficient leave balance – where the taking of leave resulted in an overpayment – where the appeal is dismissed – where the decision is confirmed
LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:	Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, 562C(1) Public Health Act 2005 (Qld) s 319 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 133 Directive 01/20 Employment Arrangements in the Event of a Health Pandemic cl 8 Directive 09/24 Sick Leave sch 1

Reasons for Decision

Background

Ms Jennifer Youell ('the Appellant') is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') as a Notifications Assessment Officer, Pharmacy Business Ownership Team, Clinical Support Queensland (AO6).
From 12 May 2021 to 10 April 2023, Ms Youell was employed in the Quarantine Fee Recovery team (QFR), Finance Branch. During the period relevant to this appeal, Ms Youell commenced a higher duties contract as an AO6 Triage Senior Advisor which was extended multiple times, eventually ending on 13 March 2023, at which time Ms Youell returned to Fee Waiver Advisor (AO5).
On 1 December 2022, Ms Youell provided a medical certificate dated 1 December 2022 which confirmed that she would be unfit for work from that date until 8 December 2022.[1] Separately, on 21 December 2022, Ms Youell advised her line manager Ms Willis, by text message, that she would be accessing sick leave on 22 and 23 December 2022. While Ms Youell communicated this to her line manager, she did not submit a leave application at this time.[2]
[1] Respondent's outline of submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 28 July 2025 [5]; Attachment 1.
[2] Ibid [7].
On 25 January 2023, Ms Willis noted that Ms Youell had not submitted an application for sick leave in MyHR for 22 and 23 December 2022 and requested that Ms Youell do so. It appears that Ms Youell had commenced leave at this time and did not receive that communication. Ms Youell did not submit an application for leave and the following day commenced an extended period of leave. On that basis, Ms Willis worked with Business Services to submit the leave application on Ms Youell's behalf.
An overpayment of $514.18 occurred as a result of Ms Youell having insufficient sick leave and was noted on Ms Youell's payslip dated 15 February 2023.
Ms O'Brien, a former Senior HR Advisor attempted to arrange a meeting with Ms Youell to discuss the cause of the overpayment on 15 May 2024. Ms Youell declined to meet with Ms O'Brien and advised that she expected a reversal of the overpayment. Ms Youell expressed a view that the overpayment was related to a grievance she had lodged about the conduct of another employee.
Jurisdictional Objection
This matter has a long history including that Ms Youell had previously lodged a grievance which related to matters involving one of her managers, Ms Frost. Ms Youell also raised matters relating to the overpayment which had been processed relating to two-days of leave she took in December 2022.
The Respondent raises a jurisdictional objection that Ms Youell is not a person who may make a fair treatment appeal pursuant to s 133 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act') as she did not fully participate in the Individual Employee Grievance process, specifically stage 2 as provided and outlined in Attachment One, s 2 of Queensland Health's HR Policy E12 Individual Employee Grievances ('the QH Individual Employee Grievances Policy').[3]
[3] Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 4 July 2025; Attachment 13.
The decision Ms Youell appeals is attached to her appeal notice. It specifically refers to the overpayment and concludes that Ms Youell needs to arrange to repay that money.
The decision of 16 June 2025 does not address the grievance against Ms Frost. It also appears from the correspondence in the materials provided to me that Ms Youell had determined not to pursue the grievance against Ms Frost and was focused on the overpayment. However, Ms Youell remains dissatisfied with the actions of Ms Frost and believes that they are inextricably linked to her grievance about the overpayment.
Ms Youell says that she made it clear she was dissatisfied with the delegate's decision. However, that appears to be in relation to the original grievance against Ms Frost. No decision has been provided regarding that part of the grievance and I am not considering that in this appeal.
The scope of this appeal is the decision relating to the overpayment. While Ms Youell may not have formally escalated the matter to a Stage 2 grievance, I understand she was also told something to the effect that the overpayment decision was not a grievance decision, but rather that it was administrative.
In any case, a decision has been made about the overpayment. Ms Youell is dissatisfied with that decision. This matter has been ongoing for years. I do not intend to prolong matters further by insisting upon technicalities of the grievance process where it is unclear whether that process applies. I will hear the matter as an appeal against a fair treatment decision.
While it raises a jurisdictional objection, the Respondent also goes on to make submissions as to why the decision was fair and reasonable. I am of the view that hearing the overpayment decision as a fair treatment appeal will assist the parties in gaining finality of this specific matter and enable them to move on from events relating to an overpayment which arose over two-years ago.
I will consider the decision of 16 June 2025, the material and submissions which have been provided to me and determine whether that decision was fair and reasonable.

The decision

Annexed to Ms Youell's appeal notice is the decision of Mr Damian Green, Deputy Director-General (Corporate Services Division) ('the decision-maker') dated 16 June 2025, the subject of this public sector appeal. The decision-maker states that 'the purpose of [the] letter is to address the overpayment that occurred in February 2023'.
The decision-maker informs Ms Youell that he has reviewed the following information to inform his decision with respect to the overpayment:
·        Your grievance lodged on 5 January 2023, in particular the parts referring to an overpayment.
·        Text messages between yourself and Ms April Willis, then Principal Advisor, Quarantine Fee Recovery, Finance Branch, CSD, regarding sick leave in December 2022.
·        The medical certificate advising you were unfit for your usual occupation from 1 December 2022 to 8 December 2022.
·        The application you submitted on 8 December 2022 for sick leave between 1-7 December 2022.
·        Your timesheets for December 2022.
·        Emails and reports regarding a sick leave application for 22 and 23 December 2022.
·        The myHR leave application submitted on your behalf for sick leave on 22 and 23 December 2022.
·        Your payslip for pay date (sic) 15 February 2023.
·        Advice from Payroll Transactional Services regarding your overpayment.
·        Overpayments and loans HR Policy C48.
·        Sick leave HR Policy C64.
Further, the decision-maker states that Ms Youell had an insufficient leave balance to support her leave to be taken between 22 and 23 December 2022, in addition to 4 January 2023. With respect to this, the decision-maker states that Ms Youell sent Ms Willis a text message on 21 December 2022 advising her that she was to access sick leave on 22 and 23 December 2022. Ms Willis requested that she submit a leave application, however, Ms Youell failed to do so and the following day, Ms Youell commenced 'an extended period of leave' and that in those circumstances, Ms Willis submitted the leave on Ms Youell's behalf, which resulted in the overpayment.
The decision-maker considered matters Ms Youell raised in her grievance about the overpayment and then set out the following:
My Decision in relation to the overpayment
I have carefully considered all the information available to me, however all the information may not be specifically mentioned in my decision.
Considering the information before me as it relates to the outstanding $514.18 that remains to be repaid, I am of the view that the correct course of action was for you to remain out of the workplace during the period of 1-7 December 2022 and access your sick leave based on the medical certificate that was provided advising that you were unfit for work.
Special pandemic leave would not have been applicable to you for this period based on HR Policy C78 (Attachment 7). While the line manager protocol specifically references work from home as an option when an employee has test positive for COVID-19, which you did not, approval to work from home is still on the basis of being fit to do so, which your medical certificate advised you were not.
Regarding the overpayment of $514.18, I consider that you are required to pay this money back. The reason for this is that Queensland Health has a duty to recover any public monies overpaid to or otherwise owed by employees, in accordance with the Financial Accountability Act 2009. You did not undertake your responsibility to submit a timely sick leave application following the leave on 22 and 23 December 2022, which would have resolved this issue at the time, and you are not entitled to be paid for that time.
While I have acknowledged that your grievance should have been progressed and addressed in a timely manner, the overpayment is a separate matter to your grievance and the leave taken (which resulted in the overpayment) occurred prior to you lodging the grievance.
Accordingly, you are directed to engage with Payroll Transactional Services to establish a plan for the repayment of $514.18. Please lodge an enquiry through the 'Enquiry Management' tile in myHR with the enquiry type 'overpayment' to initiate contact with Payroll Transactional Services who will assist you in resolving the overpayment. This step is to be undertaken within seven days of receipt of this letter.
I have asked Ms Rebecca Booth, A/Principal Employment Relations Advisor, Human Resources Advisory Services, HR Branch, CSD to contact you and confirm this step has been completed.
…
Appeal principles
Section 562B of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act') provides that the appeal is to be decided by 'reviewing the decision appealed against' and that 'the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable'.[4]
[4] Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3).
In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the IR Act provides that the Commission may:
(a) confirm the decision appealed against; or
…
(c) For another appeal – set the decision aside, and substitute another decision or return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate.

Ms Youell's reasons for appeal and submissions

In Ms Youell's appeal notice, she states that 'the delegate has not considered the circumstances for the sick leave taken on 22 and 23 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 and the outcome letter states that the delegate has not addressed [her] grievance'.[5]
[5] Appeal Notice (n 3) 4.
Further, Ms Youell says that the outcome letter incorrectly states that she did not wish for her grievance to be addressed by Ms Frost. Ms Youell contends that her grievance and overpayment are 'inextricably linked' in circumstances where she says that her grievance first raised 'concerns of repeated bullying behaviours by then Executive Director of Quarantine Fee Recovery, Ms Kirsty Frost and then Principal Advisor Ms April Willis'.
Ms Youell says that both subjects of her grievance are employed within the internal Human Resources area of the Respondent and, that she has 'received an outcome advising [her] to pay Queensland health $514.18 for sick leave taken.' She says that the bullying continued from September of 2022 until she took extended leave as a means of removing herself from what she says is 'an unsafe workplace environment' which directly impacted upon her health.
Ms Youell says that the Respondent has breached timeframe of 28-days provided for in the QH Individual Employee Grievances Policy. She also says that the decision-maker did not have all the relevant information to hand in making the decision. Ms Youell offers some explanations for this, including that the people involved have now left the Respondent, and that there were lengthy delays caused by Human Resources in the progression of her grievance.
Ms Youell says that Mr David Sinclair was the delegate at the relevant time (being the time that Ms Youell lodged her grievance) and that he was aware of other complaints that had been lodged with respect to Ms Frost. Ms Youell says that if her grievance was addressed at the time, that there would have been more information available including witnesses to the behaviour which she says resulted in her taking leave.
Ms Youell says that she sought for the Respondent to reconsider the leave pursuant to the provisions of special sick leave as defined in HR Policy C64 Sick Leave Policy ('the QH Sick Leave Policy'). Ms Youell says that in response to this request, the Respondent said this 'policy only applies to physical injuries, not psychological injuries'.
In her appeal notice, Ms Youell makes submissions regarding the delegate's comments that leave applications, and the submission of such applications are her responsibility. She says that 'the distress caused by bullying which led me to take sick leave on Thursday 22 December and Friday 23 December after visiting my GP on 21 December, and then to subsequently take a period of extended leave including unpaid leave, hindered my ability to manage this effectively'. She says that the email she received that sought for her to submit a leave request was sent following her logging off without access to work emails. She says that she was not permitted to retain her work laptop, even in circumstances where she was and remains a permanent employee.
Finally, Ms Youell's appeal notice seeks a review which takes into account the extenuating circumstances with respect to her sick leave, including but not limited to the extensive period that the overpayment amount has been owed, and the failures of the Respondent to adhere to policy. Ms Youell says that it is not fair and reasonable for the Respondent to seek that she pay three-days of sick leave which she says that she took as a consequence of bullying in the workplace which took place over two-years ago. She says that such a request is punitive and that she has already been unfairly disadvantaged financially in circumstances where she has previously had to take unpaid leave in order to remove herself from the work situation which she submits was unsafe.
Respondent's submissions
The Respondent says that the decision-maker was guided by Directive 11/20 Individual Employee Grievances ('the Directive') and included assessment at Stage 1, which culminated in a formal outcome issued on 16 June 2025.
The Respondent says that on 25 January 2023, it was identified that Ms Youell had not submitted a leave form application for the sick leave in December of 2022. Following this, the Respondent requested that Ms Youell submit a sick leave application, however, Ms Youell had commenced a period of approved leave prior to responding to this request.[6]
[6] Respondent's outline of submissions (n 1) [9].
The Respondent says that a sick leave application was submitted on Ms Youell's behalf on 8 February 2023. An overpayment was created following the retrospective entering of the two-days of leave as Ms Youell had an insufficient leave balance. The Respondent says that this was reflected on her payslip dated 15 February 2023.[7]
[7] Ibid [10].
Employee Grievance (and the outcome decision regarding the overpayment)
The Respondent says that Ms Youell emailed a grievance to the Respondent's Ethical Standards Unit ('ESU') wherein she alleges that the Executive Director was not behaving in accordance with the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service. In her grievance, Ms Youell also makes reference to the requirement for her to pay back the overpayment without reasonable justification.[8]
[8] Ibid [11].
The ESU assessed Ms Youell's grievance on 10 January 2023, determining that Ms Youell did not raise a reasonable suspicion of corrupt conduct in accordance with s 15(1) of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001. Further, the ESU advised Ms Youell that the information was not a public interest disclosure pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. The ESU referred the matter back to the Respondent for appropriate action.[9]
[9] Ibid [12].
The Respondent quotes the ESU's 'precis of the matter':[10]
It is alleged the subject officer… [then, Executive Director of Quarantine Fee Recovery] has threatened to cause a detriment to the complainant by requesting she pay back an overpayment without any reasonable justification. During the course of ESU's enquiries, the Department's People and Performance team identified that this course of action was based on advice from the Employment Relations team.
[10] Ibid [13]; Attachment 5.
The Respondent says that a representative from the Respondent's Human Resource Advisory Services ('HRAS') team liaised with Ms Youell regarding her grievance, however no further action was taken until February 2024 due to workload and competing priorities at the time and changes to case managers over time.[11]
[11] Ibid [14].
On 22 February 2024, given the time that had lapsed since the grievance was submitted, a HRAS representative spoke to Ms Youell about her grievance to understand what outcome she was seeking and what action was required. The Respondent says that Ms Youell confirmed words to the effect that the Respondent should not progress with any discussion regarding the matter with Ms Frost.[12]
[12] Attachment 6 is an email where notes from the discussion are recorded. Ms Youell was given an opportunity to review the notes and did not change this notation.
On 13 May 2024, the Respondent's Payroll Transactional Services Unit, Corporate Services Division, confirmed that Ms Youell's overpayment was related to an application for sick leave submitted on 8 February 2023 for the period 22 and 23 December 2022.[13]
[13] Ibid Attachment 7.
On 15 May 2024, a HRAS representative attempted to arrange a meeting with Ms Youell to discuss the cause of the overpayment, however, Ms Youell refused to attend, citing frustrations about the time frames this matter has taken to be addressed and advising that the only outcome she expected was 'removal of any overpayment and a re-balance of my sick leave for the period of isolation that I was not allowed to work'.[14]
[14] Ibid [17].
On 15 May 2024, a HRAS representative met with Ms Youell's line manager to ascertain information relating to the overpayment. On 16 May 2024, a HRAS representative received an email containing information relating to management's communication with Ms Youell regarding her leave applications.[15]
[15] Ibid [18]; Attachment 9.

On 12 February 2025, a HRAS representative contacted Ms Youell to advise that she was the new case manager and was seeking some further information about the matter, including evidence of a declined request to work from home between 1 to 8 December 2023 and any further information about the sick leave application that was not submitted for 22 and 23 December 2022.
On 17 February 2025, Ms Youell provided a HRAS representative with a medical certificate advising that she was unfit for her usual occupation between 1 and 8 December 2022.[16] Ms Youell also provided a copy of her flexible working arrangement application (unsigned by the delegate) where she had requested to work from home for two-days per week and some emails from her line manager unrelated to this matter.[17]
[16] Ibid Attachment 1.
[17] Ibid [20].
On 13 March 2025, the Respondent’s Payroll Transactional Services Unit emailed HRAS and advised that there is no evidence of any communication from them regarding the overpayment, other than what was included on the pay advice for pay date 15 February 2023; confirming the amount of the overpayment is $514.18 and is yet to be repaid; and a breakdown of the adjustments.[18]
[18] Ibid [21].
On 16 June 2025, Ms Youell was issued a written outcome letter regarding the overpayment matter.[19] The Respondent says that the outcome letter contained reasons for the decision and was based on a full review of documentation submitted as part of Ms Youell's grievance. The Respondent considered that stage 1 of the internal grievance was completed in accordance with the Directive.
[19] Ibid Attachment 11.
On 26 June 2025, a HRAS representative met with Ms Youell to discuss the contents of the outcome letter and options available to her if she disagreed with the decision. On 27 June 2025, a summary of the 26 June 2025 decision was emailed to Ms Youell providing the opportunity to provide feedback or further commentary to the information outlined.[20] Ms Youell did not provide a response.
[20] Attachment 12.
Respondent's response to Ms Youell's reasons for appeal
The Respondent notes that Ms Youell's expected outcome was a removal of any overpayment and a re-balance of her sick leave.
While the decision was issued outside of the timeframes set out in the Directive, the Respondent says that the Directive does not prohibit delivery of a decision outside of the prescribed period or invalidate a decision made outside of this period.
The Respondent says that the delay in issuing the Stage 1 decision was due to administrative workloads, staffing impacts and is not reflective of an unwillingness to progress the matter. The Respondent also notes that where an individual employee grievance is made about an administrative decision, and the agency fails to make a decision within 28 calendar days or such longer time as agreed, the agency is taken to have confirmed the decision and the employee may then immediately request an internal review.
The Respondent accepts that the letter does not inform Ms Youell of her appeal rights but says that on 26 June 2025, a HRAS representative met with her to discuss the contents of the outcome letter, including the decision about the overpayment. The Respondent considers that Ms Youell was aware of her appeal rights and did not exercise them.
While Ms Youell says that Mr Green did not have all of the information available to him due to the number of staff involved, and delays in progressing the grievance, the Respondent notes that Mr Green had Ms Youell's complaint and attachments, information which had been gathered through internal inquiries conducted by HRAS representatives and the relevant legislative and policy material.[21]
[21] Attachment 14.
The Respondent says that Ms Youell's submissions about the change in delegate have no merit as Mr Green was provided with all the available information to make an intelligent and justified decision as to the concerns she raised.
With regard to sick leave, the Respondent says that s 1.2 of the QH Sick Leave Policy states that employees are responsible for submitting the required documentation for every absence for which sick leave is sought. Further, the policy provides that an application may be made on behalf of an employee by the manager in situations when the employee is not able to complete a sick leave application and to avoid under and overpayments.[22]
[22] Attachment 15.
The Respondent also notes that s 1.5 of the QH Sick Leave Policy states that an employee may be granted special sick leave on full pay by the delegate (without deduction from their sick leave entitlement) if they are injured in the course of performing official duties or become ill as a result of performing official duties. The Respondent says that the request to reclassify the leave taken on 22 and 23 December 2022 as special sick leave did not form part of Ms Youell's grievance and was therefore not considered by the Respondent in the outcome of the grievance. In any case, the Respondent says that Ms Youell has not provided any evidence to support that she sustained an injury or illness because of performing her official duties.
The Respondent says that the overpayment was considered in accordance with s 6 of the QH Sick Leave Policy.[23]
[23] Attachment 16.
Respondent says that the decision is fair and reasonable
The Respondent acknowledges the considerable delays in progression of Ms Youell's concerns and the delivery of an outcome. However, the Respondent says that Ms Youell did not attempt to engage with an HRAS representative nor the respective delegates to seek an update or outcome to her grievance. The Respondent notes that Ms Youell has not followed the Individual grievance process, specifically the requirement to request an internal review of the stage 1 decision.
The Respondent says that the Stage 1 outcome affirms that the overpayment was fair, reasonable and justified having regard to the QH Overpayment and Loans Policy and the QH Sick Leave Policy.
The Respondent says that there has been no procedural unfairness or evidence of unreasonable decision-making on the part of the delegate.
The Respondent asks that the Commission confirm the decision made by the Respondent that the overpayment is a result of Ms Youell having an insufficient leave balance to cover the leave taken and that the overpayment is therefore due and payable.
Ms Youell's submissions in reply
Ms Youell says that the Respondent failed to provide a safe place of work and that the delegate has not considered that the leave she took on 22 and 23 December 'was a direct result of workplace bullying'.
Ms Youell sets out details of her grievance against Ms Frost from [6]-[15] of her written submissions. I will not set all of those submissions about here as this is not a decision about a grievance against Ms Frost. However, where the submissions relate directly to the sick leave taken on 22 December and 23 December 2022, I have considered them.
Ms Youell submits that the overpayment was as a direct result of a psychologically unsafe work environment that caused her to experience health issues in late 2022 and early 2023.
Ms Youell says that on 3 January 2023, her first workday post-Christmas, she was called to Ms Frost's office and resulting from that meeting, took a 'mental health day off work and reported Ms Frost's behaviour to Human Resources'.
Ms Youell explains that she made a decision to take extended leave, including unpaid leave from mid-January 2023.
Ms Youell then moves to her submissions specific to the overpayment. Ms Youell says that during the assessment of the grievance she had lodged against Ms Frost, she was made aware of the overpayment relating to leave taken on 22 and 23 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 when her sick leave balance was nil.
Ms Youell says that she was unaware of the sick leave request submitted on her behalf and says that she was unaware of this until it was raised by HRAS over a year later when she was contacted on 22 February 2024.
Ms Youell says that she has repeatedly informed the Respondent that she believes the 'matter of overpayment is inextricably linked to workplace bullying'.
Ms Youell says that her sick leave balance was exhausted during a period of isolation when she was not approved to work from home or go to the office. Ms Youell says that this related to the fourth COVID-19 wave in Queensland and occurred at a time when positive cases were identified in the workplace.
Ms Youell says that she had been working from home under a formal flexible workplace agreement and that the agreement was cancelled without reasonable grounds. Ms Youell says that the response to her request to work from home did not include information to advise that the QIRC has jurisdiction to hear and decide a dispute about a flexible workplace arrangement. I note that this matter is not within the scope of the appeal.
Ms Youell said that she submitted a sick leave request in MyHR for the period 1 December – 7 December 2022 and attached a PCR result which she received by text on Monday 5 December 2022 showing that she had tested positive for a viral infection. Ms Youell says that under the Queensland Health policy for managing COVID-19 in the workplace, she was not required to provide a medical certificate for isolating with COVID-19 symptoms awaiting a PCR result, however Ms Willis asked her to submit a medical certificate.
Ms Youell said that she provided an isolation notice from the fever clinic in Nundah which states that if her test is negative for COVID-19 she could leave isolation, and she returned to work in the office on 8 December 2022.
Ms Youell says that she was following Queensland Health advice to stay home and get tested and she was penalised as a result and the isolation notice from the fever clinic has been interpreted by the Respondent as a GP medical certificate. Ms Youell says that she did not visit a GP, but instead went to the temporary fever clinic attached to the medical practice.
Ms Youell believes that the five workdays between the period 1 December 2022 and 7 December 2022 should be adjusted to be special leave or Special Pandemic Leave and not debited from her sick leave balance. Ms Youell says this could happen under Directive 01/20 Employment Arrangements in the Event of a Health Pandemic ('Directive 01/20') which was effective from 16 March 2020 – 29 April 2024.
Ms Youell says that she understands that Directive 06/22 Special pandemic leave: Support following COVID-19 diagnosis and the QH Sick Leave Policy would only prevail over the Directive 01/20 where they provided better terms than Directive 01/20.
Ms Youell points to the Managing COVID-19 in the workplace protocol which gives guidelines for close contacts to work from home where feasible and states, 'a close contact should be supported to work from home…for at least 5 full days'.
Ms Youell says that sch one of Directive 09/24 Sick leave states that the chief executive may grant special sick leave as the chief executive determines to be warranted in the circumstances where an officer is injured in the course of performing official duties; or becomes ill because of performing official duties. Ms Youell says that special sick leave is not to be charged against an officer's entitlement to ordinary sick leave on full pay. Ms Youell says that Directive 06/20 Sick Leave and the QH Sick Leave Policy state the same thing.
Ms Youell says that she requested a rebalance of her sick leave, from her current positive sick leave balance of over 60 hours. Alternatively, Ms Youell sought that the period of isolation in early December be reclassified as special leave or special pandemic leave. Ms Youell points out that she has not used any of the 20 days entitlement to special pandemic leave.
In relation to her leave on 22 and 23 December 2022 and 4 January 2023, Ms Youell says that she requested the leave be considered as special sick leave as there is a direct link between her leave and the detriment done to her with the intention of causing harm. Ms Youell says that HR responded to her by telling her that special sick leave only applies to physical illness or injury, such as a needlestick injury in a hospital setting.
Ms Youell says that the QH Overpayment and Loans Policy states that Payroll Recovery Services is responsible for case management of overpayments. Ms Youell says that she has not received any communication from Payroll Recovery Services nor has she submitted a complaint via that policy. However, Ms Youell notes that there is a provision in the policy for waiving or writing-off an overpayment due to exceptional circumstances.
The Respondent did file submissions in response, however I address the matters raised in those submissions below and will not set them out here.

Consideration

I am satisfied on the basis of the material available to me that Ms Youell had informed the Respondent that she was not seeking to pursue the individual employee grievance as it related to Ms Frost. In any case, the decision under review in this appeal does not address any grievance against Ms Frost. It is a matter for Ms Youell to decide whether she wishes to escalate her dissatisfaction with the grievance outcome relating to her complaint against Ms Frost. That is beyond the scope of this appeal and will not be considered.
The decision relating to the overpayment is the sole focus of this appeal before me for determination.
The overpayment relating to the 22 and 23 December 2022 sick leave arose due to Ms Youell having exhausted her sick leave balance in early December. It is sensible to first consider the circumstances relating to the period when Ms Youell was required to isolate in early December. If Mr Green's decision regarding this aspect of the grievance was not fair and reasonable, then that leave should be recredited to Ms Youell and there would be no overpayment as she would have a sufficient sick leave balance to cover the leave taken on 22 and 23 December 2022.
The period 1-7 December 2022
By way of background, Ms Youell had previously been working under a formal flexible workplace agreement which involved her undertaking some work from home. It appears that in November 2022, this agreement ended and Ms Youell was required to return to work in person. I do not intend to go further into this matter or Ms Youell's dissatisfaction with that decision.
In the decision regarding the overpayment, Mr Green provides detailed reasons relating to the period 1-7 December 2022:
Concern regarding use of sick leave instead of work from home
In addition, I have considered the second paragraph within point 2 of your grievance where you have advised that it was the unreasonable denial of your request to work from home during a period of isolation that resulted in the period being processed as leave, not taking into consideration that this period of leave would exhaust your sick leave balance.
In this regard, I note the following:
·        Your timesheets reflect that you did not perform any work between 1-7 December 2022.
·        You provided a medical certificate dated 1 December 2022 that confirmed you had attended a medical practice for testing and that you were unfit for your usual occupation from 1 December to 8 December 2022. (Attachment 4).
·        On 6 December 2022, you sent Ms Willis a text message and stated 'I tested positive for Rhinovirus but not covid. Im (sic) not feeling great but hope to be back on Thursday [8 December 2022].
·        On 8 December 2022, you submitted a sick leave application in myHR (process reference 000011155071) with the comment 'PCR result and medical cert attached'.
·         The frequently asked questions that supported Special pandemic leave HR Policy C78 state that 'where employees are sick with illnesses, including viral infections that are not diagnosed as COVID-19, employees can access their available sick leave. If all leave balances have been exhausted the employee may access leave without pay' (Attachment 5).
·        The Managing COVID-19 in the workplace – Line manager protocol version 5 states that 'an employee with symptoms of an acute respiratory infection should get tested for COVID-19 and employees who are sick must not attend the workplace and inform their manager if they have symptoms of COVID-19', which you did. The protocol further states 'employees who have tested positive to COVID-19 and work in a high-risk setting should access available leave entitlements or work from home, where practicable and where fit to do so.' (Attachment 6).
As set out above [84], Mr Green notes that special pandemic leave would not have been available to Ms Youell as the line manager protocol specifically references work from home as an option when an employee tests positive for COVID-19, which Ms Youell did not. Mr Green also notes that approval to work from home is still on the basis of being fit to do so, which Ms Youell's medical certificate advised she was not.
I have reviewed the 'Employment arrangement in the event of a Health Pandemic' Directive 01/20, effective 16 March 2020 – 29 September 2024. Clause 9 states that the provisions of Directive 01/20 are activated when there is a 'health pandemic' as defined in the directive. Clause 8 provides the following definition:[24]
A health pandemic for the purpose of this directive means a critical health issue, as identified by a declaration of a public health emergency made under Section 319 of the Public Health Act 2005 with respect to an actual or potential health pandemic.
[24] Directive 01/20 cl 8.
I have also reviewed Queensland Health's Special Pandemic Leave: Support following a COVID-19 diagnosis policy C78 ('QH Special Pandemic Leave Policy'). As implied in the title of that policy, it applies in circumstances where an employee has been diagnosed as COVID-19 positive. The policy also refers to circumstances where an employee is providing care for an immediate family or houseful member diagnosed as COVID-19 positive.
On 31 October 2022, the Minister for Health and Ambulance Services determined, in accordance with the Public Health Act 2005, that the declared public health emergency in relation to coronavirus disease ended.
This means that Directive 01/20 has no application to the period in early December 2022 when Ms Youell took leave as there was no 'health pandemic'. Ms Youell was not diagnosed as COVID-19 positive in early December 2022. Therefore the QH Special Pandemic Leave Policy also had no application.
As the Respondent notes, at this time, isolation was self-initiated in accordance with symptom guidance and was not a mandatory direction.[25] Ms Youell attended a Fever Clinic (described in the Medical Certificate as Respiratory Clinic) on 1 December 2022. Ms Youell received a Medical Certificate under letterhead of Nundah Village Family Practice with Dr Cedric Lie Man Wong's name at the bottom. The medical certificate said, in part:
[25] Respondent's outline of further submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 18 August 2025 [10].
You have attended the Respiratory Clinic for assessment of your concerns.
We will contact you by text message or phone call when your test results are available. This may take up to 72 hours and may be longer depending on the demand for testing.
You are unfit for your usual occupation from 1^st December 2022 to 8^th December 2022.
You have been assessed and determined to be medically safe to be at home while you are waiting for your test results:
…
The letter then goes on to provide information about what will occur if COVID-19 tests are positive or negative.
At 7.14am on 1 December 2022, Ms Youell sent Ms Willis a text message stating: 'Hi April, I've an appointment for a PCR this morning so if it's ok with you I'll work from home today. Thank you, Jen'. At 8.23am on 1 December 2022, Ms Youell wrote a Teams message to Ms Willis.
I understand that Ms Youell requested to work from home on that day via the text message. However, she later submitted a medical certificate for 1 December to 8 December 2022 and filled in a leave form for these dates.

It is unclear to me on the available documentation whether once she had been to the Fever Clinic, Ms Youell changed her mind about working at home or whether Ms Willis said that Ms Youell could not work from home for that period. I do not think it matters what the circumstances were. Ms Youell submitted a Medical Certificate stating that she was unfit for her usual occupation for the period in question. Working from home when one is unwell is dependent on being fit for duty.
The contemporaneous evidence available includes a text message sent from Ms Willis to Ms Youell on 6 December 2022: 'Hi Jen, how are you feeling? Thanks, April'. Ms Youell replied stating, 'Hi April, I tested positive for Human Rhinovirus but not covid. Im (sic) still not feeling great but hope to be back on Thursday'.
It seems to me that Ms Youell was unwell during this period of time. She did not have COVID-19 and was not required to isolate. On Monday 5 December 2022, Ms Youell received a text message telling her that her test for COVID-19 was negative and that her test was positive for Human Rhinovirus. However, on Tuesday 6 December 2022 Ms Youell said that she was still unwell and was hopeful of returning on Thursday 8 December 2022. This undermines Ms Youell's submission that she was well enough to work. If Ms Youell was well enough to work and had not been approved to work from home, it would have been open to her to attend work once she received confirmation that she was not COVID-19 positive.
Ms Youell maintains the time she had off between 1 December and 7 December 2022 should be treated as isolation leave as she had an 'isolation notice'. I have looked at the email of 10 November 2022 '4^th COVID-19 wave has commenced in Queensland; COVID-19 risk alert rising to Amber tomorrow; Universal mask wearing in healthcare settings; Variants behind Queensland's new wave' attached to Ms Youell's submissions. I agree with Ms Youell that the email encourages Queenslanders to stay home if they are sick. The email also suggests that if one has COVID-19 symptoms, they should take a Rapid Antigen Test and if they test positive, stay home until they are well again.
There is no instruction in that email about compulsory isolation periods. I agree with the Respondent that the fever clinic isolation notice provided to Ms Youell on the bottom of her medical certificate is not equivalent to a public health order and does not satisfy eligibility for pandemic leave.
Ms Youell has provided me with an email of 12 December 2022 regarding steps undertaken where a colleague in the work area had tested positive to COVID-19 on 9 December 2022. One of the steps advised in that email is that co-located workers would be advised to work from home while the workstation was cleaned. There was also some suggestion that some co-workers may be asked to work from home to 'break the potential chain of transmission'. I am unsure what the relevance of this email is. It came after Ms Youell's return to work on 8 December 2022 and relates to special measures being put in place to mitigate risk following an employee testing positive to COVID-19.
I confirm Mr Green's decision that it was appropriate for the leave taken from 1 December to 7 December 2022 to be classified as sick leave and that pandemic leave was not applicable. That aspect of the decision was open to Mr Green and was fair and reasonable.
As a result, it is the case that Ms Youell did not have a sick leave balance available to her when she took sick leave on 22 December and 23 December 2022. I will now consider whether Mr Green's decision that these absences have resulted in an overpayment that will need to be paid back by Ms Youell was fair and reasonable.
The leave taken on 22 and 23 December 2022 and 4 January 2022
Should that leave be treated as 'special sick leave'?
Ms Youell says that she took leave on these dates due to the psychological impact of actions being taken against her in her workplace. Ms Youell says that these days of leave should be treated as special sick leave under the QH Sick Leave Policy. I understand that this submission did not form part of the grievance and was not specifically considered by the decision-maker, however it is addressed in the submissions of the parties and I believe forms part of the basis of Ms Youell's contention that the other part of her grievance related to Ms Willis and Ms Frost is 'inextricably linked' to the overpayment issue. I will therefore address it here.
The QH Sick Leave Policy provides the following:
1.5 Special Sick Leave
An employee may be granted special sick leave on full pay by the delegate (without deduction from their sick leave entitlement) if they are:
·injured in the course of performing official duties
or
·become ill as a result of performing official duties.
The Respondent notes that Ms Youell says the absences are linked to workplace conflict but says that no evidence has been presented that these absences were medically certified as work-related or arising from the duties Ms Youell was performing.
I note that on 21 December 2022, Ms Youell sent a text message to Ms Willis stating: 'Hi April, I'm sorry but I will be on sick leave tomorrow and Friday. I went to the GP this afternoon and I've been given another med cert and need to organise some more tests {emoji} Jen'. I have fully reviewed all of the material and submissions provided to me in this appeal and I cannot find any medical evidence to suggest that the absences on 22 and 23 December 2022 were work-related or arose out of work.
Ms Youell was informed at a follow-up meeting regarding Mr Green's decision that 'special sick leave' under the QH Sick Leave Policy was designed to address situations such as needlestick injuries or physical injuries arising in the course of official duties.
It cannot be the case that an employee who determines that they need time off due to interpersonal conflicts or grievances at work can unilaterally determine that the time off should be treated as 'special sick leave' and then not submit a leave form or provide any medical evidence to support their claim for the leave to be treated as 'special sick leave'. If Ms Youell believes she has sustained a psychological injury resulting from her work, it was or is a matter for her to see a doctor about this and consider whether to lodge a claim for workers' compensation.
Regardless of whether a person is seeking to take sick leave from their leave balance or have it treated as some other sort of leave, it is incumbent upon the employee to provide an application for that leave.
Apart from the fact that the type of injury Ms Youell says she suffered on 22 and 23 December does not on its face appear to be that which is contemplated by the QH Sick Leave Policy, if Ms Youell wished for it to be considered as such, she need to provide a medical certificate to support her application.
The QH Sick Leave Policy provides at cl 1.5 that 'Employees are responsible for submitting the required documentation e.g. medical certificates (when required) and leave forms for every absence for which sick leave is sought'. Ms Youell was informed that she needed to submit a leave application for those days, I understand she says she did not receive that request, but in any case, she did not submit a leave form. The application was then made on her behalf. This is contemplated by cl 1.5 which also provides '(a)n application may be made on behalf of an employee by the manager in situations where the employee is not able to complete a sick leave application and to avoid under and overpayments'. As I understand the information provided, Ms Youell was required to apply for leave, did not do so, and later commenced an extended period of leave. I do not think it was improper for the application to be submitted on Ms Youell's behalf.
The leave on those relevant dates is not 'special sick leave' as contemplated by the QH Sick Leave Policy.
There has been an overpayment.
Is it appropriate for Mr Green to decide that Ms Youell should pay the money back?
As is set out above, Mr Green determined that Ms Youell is required to pay the money back. Mr Green said that Queensland Health has a responsibility to recover any public monies overpaid or otherwise owed by employees. Mr Green also noted that had Ms Youell fulfilled her responsibility to submit a timely sick leave application following the leave, the overpayment would not have occurred.
I have considered Ms Youell's submission that the distress she was experiencing as a result of workplace bullying hindered her ability to manage her leave effectively. Ms Youell also says that the request for her to submit a leave application was sent to her after she logged off and had no access to work emails having handed back her laptop. I do not accept these submissions. Ms Youell was an experienced employee who knew that she had taken two-days of sick leave in late December. Ms Youell appeared to be aware that she had exhausted her sick leave earlier in December. If anything, knowing that she had no sick leave balance available should have reinforced in Ms Youell's mind the importance of submitting a leave form. Ms Youell completed a timesheet for this period in which she must have included the two-days of sick leave, again, this should have prompted her to submit a sick leave application, even if that application were to seek that the leave be treated as 'special sick leave'.
The QH Overpayment and Loans Policy and the associated Guideline provides that waivers may only be approved when: the debt is not legally recoverable; recovery is not economical; recovery is inconsistent with equity and good conscience.[26]
[26] Waiving and Writing-Off Overpayments and Loans Guideline.
The Respondent submits that the overpayment is legally recoverable, economically viable and that no evidence of financial hardship or inequity has been provided.
It seems to me that in circumstances where Ms Youell did not have a sick leave balance available and did not fulfil the requirement to submit a leave form in a timely manner resulting in an overpayment, that overpayment is legally recoverable and economical.
The most compelling argument Ms Youell makes as to why the debt should be waived appears to be the length of time it has taken for her grievance to be dealt with. I do not find that this alone makes recovery 'inconsistent with equity and good conscience'.
It was fair and reasonable for Mr Green to determine that the overpayment was recoverable and to direct Ms Youell to make arrangements to pay the amount she owes.
Other matters included in Ms Youell's appeal notice and submissions
I am of the view that the reasons I have provided above are sufficient for Ms Youell to understand why I have decided that Mr Green's decision regarding leave and the overpayment was fair and reasonable. However, to ensure that I have addressed the matters raised in the appeal notice and submissions, I will provide some further discussion of the various other matters raised in the parties' submissions here.
As I have stated above, it is a matter for Ms Youell to pursue the aspects of her grievance associated with her manager/s that she says were not dealt with in the decision regarding the overpayment. Those matters are beyond the scope of this appeal.
I accept that it has taken an exceptionally long time for Ms Youell's grievance to be decided. The Respondent acknowledged the length of time taken. However, in circumstances where Ms Youell has been aware of the overpayment for some time and was offered an opportunity to meet with a HRAS representative to better understand how the overpayment came about, I do not find that the delay serves to make the decision not fair or reasonable.
I accept that the decision letter did not inform Ms Youell of her appeal rights, however she was informed of those rights at a meeting to discuss the letter and has exercised her right of appeal. The absence of appeal rights from the grievance stage 1 letter has not caused prejudice to Ms Youell. This is particularly in circumstances where the Respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection that Ms Youell should not be able to appeal as she has not escalated the grievance to stage 2, but noting that Ms Youell was also told that the decision about the overpayment was an 'administrative decision' and the length of time this matter has taken, I have decided to hear the appeal.
I understand that Ms Youell says the delegate did not have all of the material to hand, however I am satisfied that the available material was sufficient for Mr Green to address the overpayment matter in a fair and reasonable way.
Even if Mr Green had access to all of the people involved and had investigated all of the matters relevant to the other part of Ms Youell's grievance, I do not accept that it would have been open to him to provide ‘special sick leave’ in the absence of medical evidence that the injury arose in the course of Ms Youell's work or official duties.
Ms Youell submits that the request to pay back the overpayment appears punitive in nature and says that she has already been financially disadvantaged by taking extended leave including unpaid leave in order to remove herself from the work situation. I do not accept that the request to pay back the two-days which were overpaid is punitive in nature. Queensland Health is required to seek repayment of overpayments. With regard to the financial disadvantage Ms Youell says she has suffered resulting from taking leave to remove herself from the work situation, this appeal against the overpayment is not the avenue to address that issue. It is confined to the overpayment arising out of a two-day period in December 2022. I also do not accept that waiving the overpayment could be contemplated as an appropriate way to address the other aspects of Ms Youell's grievance and I understand why this was not considered by the decision-maker to be an appropriate outcome.
The decision was fair and reasonable
I am satisfied that the decision-maker took into account all material available and has addressed the matters raised by Ms Youell regarding the overpayment part of her grievance. The decision addresses the delay in providing a response and I am satisfied the delay has not resulted in unfairness or unreasonableness that should lead to the decision being set aside. Ms Youell's human rights were considered. I also note that Ms Youell was informed that employee assistance is available to her. Ms Youell was provided with a contact person if she had any questions about the decision and I understand a meeting was held with her to discuss the decision.
For the reasons set out above, Mr Green's decision of 16 June 2025 is fair and reasonable. The decision appealed against is confirmed.
Order
In accordance with the Commission's powers under s 562C(1)(a) of the IR Act, I make the following order:

1.The decision appealed against is confirmed.

[2025] QIRC 241

8 September 2025