Education, Employment and Training

This case concerned an application by the respondent for orders that they be granted leave to be legally represented at the proceedings between the respondent and the applicant. The substantive proceedings concerned the applicant seeking reinstatement of his former position, where he had raised the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [22]. This was not considered by the Commission.

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented in any conciliation conferences held before the Commission regarding an unfair dismissal application. The respondent had raised in submissions specific issues that were likely to be disputed, both in fact and law, which included whether the respondent had complied with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). There were no further references to or discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The Commission did not consider human rights in the decision to grant leave to be legally represented.

The case concerned a finding by the Queensland Racing Integrity Commission that the applicant had engaged in misconduct. The Tribunal determined that the limitations on the applicant’s human rights were reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.

The appellant, a Registered Nurse, appealed against Queensland Health’s decision which denied him an exemption from complying with a vaccination directive, which he requested on the basis of his religious beliefs: at [7], [8], [13], [31]. As an aspect of the appeal, the appellant alleged that his human rights were breached through religious discrimination: at [36].

The case concerned an appeal against a rejection of the appellant’s application for an exemption, made on the grounds of a genuinely held religious belief, from the Queensland Health employee COVID-19 vaccination requirement: at [4]. The Commissioner acknowledged that the decision may engage or limit some of the appellant’s human rights and that the decision-maker had rightly decided that the limitation on human rights was necessary and there were no less restrictive means to achieve the directive’s purpose: at [15], [36]-[38]. Accordingly, the Commission held that the application for the exemption was rightly declined as the decision was fair and reasonable and the appeal was dismissed: at [39]-[40].

This matter involved an application for appeal of a disciplinary decision from the Respondent based on various allegations made in respect to the Applicant’s conduct during his employment.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to refuse their COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form which cited genuinely held religious beliefs. The appellant submitted that the vaccination requirement was contrary to s 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) however the Commission found that the Health Employment Directive 12/21 could not be characterised as engaging this provision.

This matter concerned an application for a review of a decision by the respondent to refuse an exemption from COVID-19 Vaccination requirements requested by the applicant.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert his employment to permanent. The respondent’s decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. There was no substantive discussion of human rights or the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The case concerned an application for review of a yellow card negative notice. The Department identified that the rights to protection from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 17) and freedom from work (section 18), so far as they related to vulnerable people, are already incorporated into the Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld), and the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) supports but does not extend the paramount consideration.