Domrow v State of Queensland (Queensland Treasury) [2022] QIRC 331

Date: 24 August 2022
Tribunal: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Tribunal Member: Power IC
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 15
Rights Considered: Right to recognition and equality before the law
Other Legislation: Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (QLD) s 7; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD) ch 11 pt 6 div 4, ss 562B, 562C; Public Health Act 2005 (QLD); Public Service Act 2008 (QLD) ch 7
Keywords: Public Law Considerations: COVID-19 Directions

This matter concerned an appeal, brought against a decision regarding the Queensland Treasury’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Treasury employees, under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (QLD). The purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision was fair and reasonable. The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s submissions that the policy contravened Section 7(O) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (QLD), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities, and s 5(2)-(3) of the Human Rights Act (QLD). The Tribunal held that potential impact on human rights had been considered in the application of the Policy, and thus, the decision was reasonable.

The Appellant submitted that, inter alia, his human rights had not been properly considered in implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Treasury employees (‘the Policy’): at [18]. Amongst other reasonings, the Appellant contended that he did not want to take the ‘emergency approved COVID-19 vaccination’ and risk a vaccine related injury due to his family responsibilities: at [20]. Section 7(O) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (QLD) prohibits discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities. Therefore, the Appellant submitted the Respondent was in breach of s 15(2) (every person has the right to enjoy the person’s human rights without discrimination) and 15(3) (every person is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD): at [20].

The Respondent submitted that its decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstance. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted the Appellant has not advised how he believes the Policy is not compatible with human rights: at [22].

The Commission held that potential impact on human rights had been considered in the application of the Policy: at [30]-[31]. Thus, the Respondent’s decision was reasonable: at [31].

Visit the judgment: Domrow v State of Queensland (Queensland Treasury) [2022] QIRC 331