Education, Employment and Training

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.

This case concerned a review of a decision to issue the applicant with a negative notice for a Blue Card on the basis that he had a history of being violent. The decision to deny a Blue Card was ultimately upheld, the best interests of children taking priority over the applicant’s interests, which the tribunal stated was consistent with human rights considerations in the circumstances. There was no significant human rights discussion.

This case concerns an appeal against a decision to refuse the appellants transfer request to a higher employment classification level. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was considered in regard to the obligation of the Department's decision makers to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

The case concerned an appeal of a disciplinary finding decision and a suspension without pay decision. The appellant contended that decisions following vaccine directions made under the Health Employment Directive No. 12/21 - Employee COVID-18 vaccination requirements had contravened the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which she subsequently sought to invoke.

The case concerned a disciplinary reprimand in relation to an allegation that the appellant illegally parked on the Princess Alexandra Hospital campus. The appellant made submissions that the respondent had ‘defied’ the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in causing the appellant’s ‘sheer mental agony and torture.’ The Commission disagreed and instead found that it was reasonable for the decision-maker to impose the disciplinary action.