Education, Employment and Training

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to promote him. Both the appellant and respondent referred to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in their submissions but the Act was not substantively discussed by the Commission.

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

The case concerned an appeal against a failed application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers.

Ms Colebourne was an employee Queensland Police Service. She refused to be vaccinated. Her employment was suspended without remuneration. She challenged this on various grounds including that the decision was to punish her, which was an improper purpose under statute: at [34]. Her evidence for this was an admission by Acting Assistant Commissioner Nelson that the decision limited various of her rights: at [80].

This case concerned an appeal against a deemed decision not to convert the appellant to a higher classification position. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in a quoted passage from ‘Directive 13/20 Appointing a public service employee to a higher classification level’. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons.

The appellant sought a review of the decision to suspend his employment from public service without remuneration as a result of his noncompliance with a direction to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to suspend his employment without normal remuneration after he had been charged with seven indictable offences, including five counts of sexual assault, which allegedly occurred during his work as a ride share driver and not his work for the respondent.

The case concerned an application for a review of an exclusion from working in the disability sector. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s rights to fair hearing and not to be tried or punished more than once had not been limited, and that it could lawfully make a decision incompatible with the applicant’s right to reputation as the Disability Services Act 2000 (Qld) compels it to conduct a risk assessment, and to make the safety of persons with a disability the paramount consideration. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application.

This case concerned an appeal of a Queensland Health decision that denied the appellant an exemption from compliance with an employment vaccination directive on the basis of her religious beliefs as a Seventh Day Adventist (‘the decision’). The Commission was required to conduct a review of the decision to determine whether it was fair and reasonable.

This matter related to a public service appeal for appointment to a high classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was referred to in a departmental document tendered in evidence. However, there was no substantive discussion of human rights in the reasons.