Education, Employment and Training

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from her duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements.

This case concerned an application to the Tribunal, seeking authorisation to share information about former guardianship proceedings concerning BJ with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and a News Media company.

This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to refuse to exempt the appellant from the required doses of the COVID-19 vaccination.

This case concerned an appeal of a decision to extend the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment and to not permanently appoint her based on genuine operational requirements.

This case concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision that the appellant contravened clause 5 of the Employment Direction 1/22 - COVID 19 Vaccination (‘the direction’), without reasonable excuse.

This matter concerned the appeal of the respondent’s decision to continue the appellant’s suspension without remuneration for a further six months. The Commissioner considered the statutory requirements binding the respondent and found that respondent did not comply with all requirements.

The case concerned an application for leave to be legally represented. The Court considered that the applicant’s right to equal protection would not be compromised, and ultimately granted leave.

The case concerned an application seeking an exemption from the operation of s 14 and s 15 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for the purposes of undertaking an affirmative action recruitment plan that targets only female waste truck drivers. The Commission was satisfied that the exemption was compatible with human rights and granted the exemption to the Ipswich City Council for a period of three years.

This matter concerned the appeal of a decision made by the respondent to transfer the appellant to a new managerial position. The respondent claimed that the transfer was made due to ‘complex difficulties’ in the workplace, mental or physical illness or disability caused by work and an account from a medical practitioner that the appellant’s workplace issues were the source of their health issues.

This matter concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative Blue Card notice to the applicant. In ordering that the respondent’s decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing (section 31) the right not to be punished more than once for an offence (section 34), as well as the rights of every child to the protection that is needed by the child, and is in the child’s best interests, because of being a child (section 26) were relevant, but found that this decision does not limit the applicant’s rights or the rights of children to protection and is therefore compatible with human rights.