Education, Employment and Training

This case concerned an application for a review of a decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission by Yin Cheng Jin, where the Queensland Human Rights Commission rejected a complaint by Mr Jin under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

This case concerned an application for an exemption from the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by a Queensland-based defence contractor, in order to ensure compliance with US laws prohibiting sharing technology and data with persons holding citizenship or permanent residency in a group of specified countries. The Commission considered that the exemption would impact on the entitlement to equal protection of the law without discrimination (section 15(3)), and right to equal and effective protection against discrimination (section 15(4)), but that the limitation was justified on the basis of contract compliance and national security. The exemption was ultimately granted.

This case concerned an application for review of the respondent’s decision to issue a negative blue card notice to the applicant, GEE. In weighing the risk and protective factors in consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s prior ten child concern reports for children in her care, her history of domestic violence (as both a protected and respondent person) and limited criminal history, the applicant’s ongoing interpersonal conflict with others and authorities, the circumstances in her home, the lack of independent social supports, and the perceived lack of insight and accountability the applicant had for her own actions related to harm suffered to a child in her care.

This case concerned an application by the Mackay Regional Council to receive an exemption under s 113(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) in order to recruit only people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander to apprentice/trainee positions.

This matter concerned an appeal of the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant from duty without remuneration, following the appellant’s failure to comply with vaccination requirements and failure to apply for an exemption. The appellant did not make any submissions expressly regarding the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and there was no substantive discussion of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the reasons.

The case concerned an application for an exemption pertaining to mandatory
COVID-19 vaccination and mask requirements for police officers and certain staff members due to concern about a potential adverse reaction.

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty which reduced her classification from Clinical Nurse (NG6) to Registered Nurse (NG5).

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.

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).

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).