• Zhao v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 185

    This case concerned an appeal by the applicant against the respondent’s decision not to permanently appoint the applicant within Queensland Health. The applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Registry. The Industrial Relations Commission noted that, in making the decision, particular attention was paid to Directive 09/20 (fixed term temporary employment). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) is considered under 4.5 of the Directive. There was no substantial discussion of human rights.
  • Hurling v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 084

    The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).
  • Hurling v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2022] QIRC 084

    The Applicant sought a review of the Respondent’s decision to suspend them without remuneration, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the the Decision-Maker erred in applying s 58(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and also contravened s 58(1)(b).
  • GT v Department of Transport and Main Roads [2022] QCAT 187

    This matter concerned an application to stay the operation of the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ decision to immediately suspend the applicant’s driver authorisation number as a result of him being charged with domestic violence offences.
  • Fennell v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2021] QIRC 092

    This case concerns an appeal to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission against a decision made with respect to the appellant’s fixed term temporary employment status and consideration of conversion to permanent employment. In order to consider the appeal, it was necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act 2008 and Directive 09/20 Fixed Term Temporary Employment, the latter of which included a reference to the requirement imposed by section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 which requires decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. However, there was no consideration of human rights made by the Commission.
  • Ellison v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 174

    The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision not to convert her employment from a Registered Nurse (NG5) to a Clinical Nurse (NG6).
  • Drage v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 173

    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.
  • Bezett v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire and Emergency Services) [2023] QIRC 048

    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.
  • William Peter Hulbert v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2022] QCAT 130

    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.
  • Sunny v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 119

    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].

Pages

Subscribe to RSS

Research Area