Dobson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2026] QIRC 224

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Dobson v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2026] QIRC 224 PARTIES: Dobson, Clare (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Education) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/275 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Conversion Decision DELIVERED ON: 10 July 2026 MEMBER: Caddie IC HEARD AT: On the papers ORDERS: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal of a deemed decision to refuse permanent appointment at the higher classification level – where the Appellant was acting at a higher classification level in the position of Guidance Officer – where the Appellant acted as a Guidance Officer at multiple schools – where a deemed decision was made – where deemed decisions are not inherently unfair or unreasonable – where decision appealed against fair and reasonable – decision appealed against confirmed. LEGISLATION AND INSTRUMENTS: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562C, 564 -- 1 of 16 -- 2 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 120, 129, 131, 133 Directive O3/23 Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level CASES: Cushing v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 252 Deans v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 108 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J), 5 Gomez v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2024] QIRC 190 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] On 4 December 2025, Ms Clare Dobson ('Ms Dobson') filed an appeal against a deemed decision ('the decision') by the Department of Education ('the Department') not to permanently appoint her to the higher classification level of Guidance Officer (H01) at the Maleny and Baringa schools (the 'higher classification positions').1 [2] The end date for acting in the higher classification positions was Friday 12 December 2025. It is not contested that Ms Dobson ceased acting in the higher classification positions subject to this appeal from that date. 2 [3] Ms Dobson commenced employment with the Department on a temporary basis as a Teacher (General) on 17 April 2017. On 24 January 2019, Ms Dobson was employed on a permanent basis as a Teacher (Intellectual Impairment). This remains as Ms Dobson's substantive permanent position at classification level B03. 1 Pursuant to s 120(6) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), notified 26 November 2025. 2 T1-3 ll 9-20; T1-4 ll 1-11. At the Mention, Ms Dobson clarified that she is now acting full time in another role at the higher level: T1-9 ll 20-34. -- 2 of 16 -- 3 [4] Ms Dobson commenced acting at the higher classification level of H01 Guidance Officer at 0.2 FTE in April 2022. 3 [5] Between 30 May 2022 and 12 December 2025, Ms Dobson undertook numerous consecutive higher duties engagements as a Guidance Officer (H01), often at 0.6 FTE or 1.0 FTE as required. Ms Dobson had acted in Guidance Officer positions at a variety of locations throughout the North Coast Region, including Maleny State School, Mooloolah State School, Woodford State School, Baringa State Secondary College, Kenilworth State College, Landsborough State School and Meridan State School. 4 [6] The request for review pursuant to s 120 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act') directly relevant to this appeal was made on 28 October 2025.5 As at that date, Ms Dobson was performing higher duties in the position of Guidance Officer at Maleny State School (0.4 FTE) and Guidance Officer, Baringa State Secondary College, (0.4 FTE). 6 [7] It is not contested that Ms Dobson was eligible to seek the s 120 review as she met the suitability and continuous service requirements. 7 Ms Dobson was engaged in the higher classification positions at the time she sought the review. 8 Is the decision capable of being appealed? [8] A 'conversion decision' is defined by s 129 of the PS Act: conversion decision means a decision – … (e) under section 120 or 121 not to employ a public sector employee at a higher classification level, if the employee had been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level for a continuous period, as defined for the employee in a directive made under section 120(7), of at least 2 years. [9] A conversion decision is capable of being appealed. 9 Ms Dobson, as the employee subject of the decision, is entitled to appeal. 10 3 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [5]. 4 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [5]. 5 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [3]. Ms Dobson made a previous request for review on 25 July 2024 pursuant to s 120 of the PS Act. Ms Dobson received a decision on 20 August 2024 that advised genuine occupational requirements precluded conversion into the role of Guidance Officer at Mooloolah State School, as an existing employee was absent with an expected return date of September 2024. 6 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [9]. 7 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [19(i)]. 8 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [9]. 9 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s131(1)(a). 10 Ibid. -- 3 of 16 -- 4 [10] The appeal was lodged within the 21-day timeframe stipulated by the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'), with the decision appealed against received on 28 November 2025 and the appeal being lodged on 4 December 2025. 11 Appeal Principles [11] When determining public sector appeals, the Commission must assess whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable. 12 This is not determined by 'rehearing' the matter; rather, the Commission must review the decision and the associated decision- making process. 13 Decisions reasonably open to the decision-maker are not expected to be disturbed on appeal. [12] The issue for my determination is whether the deemed decision to refuse to convert Ms Dobson to permanent employment at the higher classification level was fair and reasonable. What decisions can the Commission make? [13] Section 562C sets out that the Commission, when determining an appeal, may: • confirm the decision appealed against; 14 or • set aside the decision and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate; 15 or • set the decision aside and substitute another decision.16 What remedy is sought? [14] Ms Dobson seeks the Commission set the decision aside and substitute it with another decision that appoints her permanently into the Guidance Officer position at either 1.0 FTE or 'the closest available fraction consistent with ongoing duties'.17 [15] The Department seeks that the decision be confirmed as fair and reasonable and the appeal be dismissed, or should the Commission determine to set the decision aside, that it be returned with directions.18 11 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 564. 12 Ibid s 562B(3). 13 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J), 5. 14 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562C(1)(a). 15 Ibid s 562C(1)(c). 16 Ibid. 17 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [20]. 18 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [21]. -- 4 of 16 -- 5 The Decision appealed against [16] Formal notification of a deemed decision was sent by email to Ms Dobson on Wednesday 26 November 2025. This was the day following the expiry of the 28-day period within which the Chief Executive was required to undertake the review. [17] The notification is reproduced below (emphasis added): Dear Clare I refer to your request dated 28 October 2025 asking the Department to employ you in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis in accordance with section 120 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (the PS Act) and the Public Sector Commissioner Directive 03/23 – Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level (the Directive). In accordance with section 120(2) of the PS Act, a decision was required to be made by the Department on or before Tuesday, 25 November 2025. In accordance with clause 11 of the Directive, your application resulted in a deemed decision. A deemed decision refers to circumstances where the Department does not make a decision in the relevant timeframe provided for under the PS Act, and consequently, the Department is taken to have decided not to employ you at the higher classification on a permanent basis. If you are dissatisfied with the deemed decision outcome, in accordance with section 121 of the PS Act, you have the right to make an additional request for a review of your acting or secondment at the higher classification, as long as you have not lodged an appeal with the Industrial Registry of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QRIC). If you wish to make an additional request asking the Department to employ you in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis, you must make your request within 3 months of the date of the Department's deemed decision (i.e. Wednesday, 25 February 2026). Your request can be made by emailing the Employment Review team at [email protected] advising you wish to have an additional review undertaken of your acting or secondment at the higher classification level in accordance with section 121 of the PS Act. Alternatively, as the Department's review resulted in a deemed decision and you have been acting or seconded to the position at the higher classification level for a continuous period of 2 years, you may lodge an appeal with the Industrial Registry of the QIRC. An appeal must be lodged by completing Form 89 – Appeal Notice – Public Sector Act 2022 within 21 days after the deemed decision was made (i.e. no later than Tuesday, 16 December 2025). -- 5 of 16 -- 6 Statutory framework: [18] The legislative framework for review of a decision not to convert an employee to a higher classification level position is contained in the IR Act, PS Act and in Directive 03/23 Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level. [19] Section 120 of the PS Act relevantly provides the matters that must be considered by a chief executive when considering the request for permanent appointment to the higher classification (emphasis added): 120 Employee may request employment at higher classification level after 1 year of continuous acting or secondment (1) If the public sector employee has been acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level for a continuous period of at least 1 year, the employee may ask the employee's chief executive to employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis, after— (a) the end of 1 year of acting at, or being seconded to, the higher classification level; and (b) the end of each subsequent 1-year period. (2) The employee's chief executive must decide the request within the required period. (3) The employee's chief executive may decide to employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis only if the chief executive considers the employee is suitable to perform the role. (4) In making the decision, the employee's chief executive must have regard to— (a) the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity; and (b) the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. (5) If the employee's chief executive decides to refuse the request, the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating— (a) the reasons for the decision; and (b) the total continuous period for which the employee has been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level in the public sector entity; and (c) how many times the employee's acting arrangement or secondment has been extended; and (d) each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the employee during the employee's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. (6) If the employee's chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have refused the request. (7) The commissioner must make a directive about employing an employee at a higher classification level under this section. (8) In this section— continuous period, in relation to an employee acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level, has the meaning given under a directive. required period, for making a decision under subsection (2), means— -- 6 of 16 -- 7 (a) the period stated in an industrial instrument within which the decision must be made; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—28 days after the request is made. suitable, in relation to an employee performing a role, has the meaning given under a directive. [20] Directive 03/23 relevantly provides the following (emphasis added): 4. Principles 4.1 Chief executives are responsible for making decisions under the provisions of chapter 3, part 9, division 2 of the Act. 4.2 Chief executives are required to act in a way that is compatible with the main purpose of the Act and how the main purpose is achieved, including fair treatment of public sector employees and maximising employment security and permanency of employment. … 5. Interpretation of directions … 5.5 The requirements set out in these directions are binding and must be followed. 6. Requests to employ a public sector employee at a higher classification level on a permanent basis 6.1 A request made under sections 120 or 121 of the Act must be made to the chief executive in writing, unless circumstances exist where an employee requires reasonable adjustments to make the request in another way. … 7. Decision-making 7.1 When making a decision in consideration of the factors provided for in section 120(4) of the Act, a chief executive is responsible for determining the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity. [21] The meaning of 'continuous period' is set out as follows: 8. Meaning of continuous period 8.1 Continuous period, for the purposes of this directive, means a period of unbroken engagement, including periods of authorised leave or absence, at the higher classification level in the same role, in the same public sector entity. 8.2 Additionally, a public sector employee has been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level, where they have been remunerated at the full rate of the higher classification level during the period of unbroken engagement mentioned in clause 8.1. 8.3 Authorised leave, as provided for in clause 8.1, includes any period of leave that has been approved by the chief executive, including leave without pay for any period, where it is intended that the employee will return to the position at the higher classification level following the period of leave. 8.4 It is at the discretion of a chief executive to determine what constitutes an authorised absence, as provided for in clause 8.1. For example, a chief executive may determine an authorised absence to include acting at, or being seconded to, an alternative position at a higher classification level, where it was always intended that the employee would return to the position at the higher classification level following the period of absence. -- 7 of 16 -- 8 [22] 'Suitable' is also defined by the Directive: 9.1 A public sector employee is to be considered suitable to perform the role where: (a) the employee has provided evidence of possessing any relevant mandatory qualification/s (as reflected in the role description), and (b) the employee meets any relevant mandatory condition/s of the role (as reflected in the role description), and (c) the employee is not subject to any unresolved and documented conduct or performance matters that have been put to the employee in writing, and where required, managed in accordance with the requirements of a relevant directive, such as the directives relating to positive performance management and discipline [23] The Directive provides for deemed decisions as follows (emphasis added): 11. Deemed decisions 11.1 A deemed decision refers to circumstances where a chief executive does not make a decision in the relevant timeframe provided for under the Act, and consequently, the chief executive is taken to have decided not to employ the person at the higher classification on a permanent basis. 11.2 A written notice is not required to be prepared to support a deemed decision. 11.3 However, within 14 days of a deemed decision occurring, a chief executive must inform the employee in writing of: (a) the employee's right to make an additional request for employment at the higher classification level on a permanent basis under section 121 of the Act, if the initial request was made under section 120 of the Act, and (b) any relevant appeal right available to the employee. 11.4 Unless otherwise advised by the chief executive, where a deemed decision occurs, a person's engagement in the public sector entity is to continue according to the terms of the existing secondment or acting arrangement. 11.5 Chief executives of public sector entities are expected to undertake each review as required by the Act and must not make an intentional decision to rely on a deemed decision to determine a review outcome. Grounds of Appeal [24] The grounds on which Ms Dobson appealed the deemed decision are summarised below: 19 the fact that Ms Dobson had acted as a Guidance Officer for almost three years across multiple schools demonstrated an ongoing operational need; permanent officers placed into Maleny State School had not taken up the role and Ms Dobson was repeatedly requested to return; regional 'oversupply' was not a genuine operational reason under the Directive, particularly given the Department's ongoing reliance on the Appellant to fulfil duties as a Guidance Officer; 19 Form 89, filed 4 December 2025, 4. -- 8 of 16 -- 9 Ms Dobson's performance had consistently 'met expectations' and she displayed clear merit for permanent appointment; and the deemed decision did not assess required factors, such as merit, operational need or deployment flexibility and was therefore unreasonable. Submissions [25] The submissions of the parties will be considered as relevant to issues to be determined in this appeal. Alleged procedural deficiency with deemed decision [26] First, I will address Ms Dobson's contention that the deemed decision by its nature, was procedurally deficient. In the appeal notice Ms Dobson asserted that the deemed decision was unreasonable as it 'involved no assessment of required factors including merit, operational need or deployment flexibility'.20 [27] This is repeated in Ms Dobson's submissions of 5 January 2026, where she characterised the deemed decision as 'a refusal without reasons and a refusal of procedural fairness'. 21 [28] In further submissions filed 22 January 2026, Ms Dobson pointed to the requirements prescribed by s 120(4)(b) of the PS Act and argued the absence of that detail rendered the deemed decision unfair: (4) In making the decision, the employee's chief executive must have regard to— (a) the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity; and (b) the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. [29] The Department submitted that the PS Act does not indicate that a deemed decision fails to afford procedural fairness to an employee, nor that it is inherently unfair or unreasonable and said that it falls on Ms Dobson to establish why the decision was not fair and reasonable. 22 The Department submitted that any procedural fairness requirements had been met, noting that s 120(6) of the PS Act provided that a deemed decision may be made. 23 [30] When a deemed decision occurs the decision maker is taken to have refused the request to appoint permanently and the employee continues in the higher classification positions on the existing terms of that engagement. For Ms Dobson, that meant until the conclusion of the engagements on Friday 12 December 2025. 20 Form 89 Appeal Notice, filed 4 December 2026, [4]. 21 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [12]. 22 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [17]. 23 Ibid [19]. -- 9 of 16 -- 10 [31] I agree with the Department that a deemed decision is not inherently unfair and unreasonable. Both the PS Act and Directive contemplate circumstances in which the chief executive does not decide within the required timeframe and makes provisions in those circumstances. It is also correct that different requirements exist around the information to be provided in a deemed decision compared to an active decision. The absence of information required for an active decision does not render a deemed decision unfair or unreasonable. [32] However, I do not agree with the submissions of the Department that appear to me to suggest that because deemed decisions exist, they are inherently fair and reasonable and it is for the Appellant to identify any unfairness. The statutory framework makes clear that the chief executive must undertake the required review and that deemed decisions are not a choice available to a decision-maker. Deemed decisions occur - they are not to be chosen. [33] I consider the original submissions of the Department on this matter to be inadequate. No information was provided about any steps taken by the decision-maker once the request for review had been made, the circumstances leading to the deemed decision occurring, or how the required considerations from any commenced review would have impacted the outcome had it been concluded. [34] This was particularly concerning as it seemed possible the notification of the deemed decision had been prepared prior to the deemed decision manifesting. I formed that view on the basis that the notification email was sent on the very day on which the deemed decision could exist. Choosing a deemed decision would not align to the statutory requirements and is relevant to the reasonableness of that outcome on review. [35] I raised these concerns with the Department at a mention of the parties convened 5 June 2026. The Department indicated that enquiries were made following the requested review and advised further information would be provided to assist the Commission.24 [36] The following details were provided about the steps taken by the Department: • 28 October 2025 - Ms Dobson submitted her application for conversion • 18 and 19 November 2025 – contact made with North Coast Region, HR Operations, who advised they did not support appointment to the position due to backfill behind substantive employees (at both schools) • 19 and 20 November 2025 – contact made with Director, Student Services in North Coast Region, who advised that the role at Baringa State Secondary College was a backfill, but the position at Maleny State School has been vacated 24 T1-7 ll 45-50; T1-8 ll 1-5. -- 10 of 16 -- 11 [37] No enquiries were made within the first 21 days following the review request. While the information confirmed there was an incumbent owner of the Baringa position, it also demonstrated that at the time of the review, the .4 FTE position at Maleny school was vacant. [38] Additional information provided by the Department indicated that priority placement into the position at Maleny was given to a permanent employee requiring transfer at level. Subsequently, that person was being backfilled by another permanent employee at level.25 [39] At the mention the Department advised that constrained resourcing meant they were not able to complete the review and issue the decision not to convert before the 28 days concluded on 25 November 2025. 26 The notification of a deemed decision was issued and Ms Dobbs continued in the higher classification positions until the end date of the acting arrangement on 12 December 2025. [40] On this basis I find that a deemed decision occurred in accordance with s 120(6) of the PS Act and a compliant notice was issued on 26 November 2025. [41] As I have outlined above, there is nothing inherently unfair or unreasonable about a deemed decision occurring. Presumption of permanent employment [42] Ms Dobson also contended that the higher classification conversion requirements established a presumption of permanence if the continuous service and suitability requirements had been met. This presumption is said to be bolstered by Directive 03/23, which Ms Dobson characterised as requiring the Department to 'appoint the employee unless there are genuine operational requirements that justify refusal'. 27 [43] The Department refute Ms Dobson's characterisation of both the PS Act and the Directive and argue there exists no presumption of permanent employment in either the PS Act or the Directive. 28 [44] Ms Dobson clarified in submissions in reply that the contention was not that s 120 created an 'automatic entitlement or presumption of permanent employment'. 29 Rather, Ms Dobson pointed to the longevity of her service in the higher level guidance officer positions for 3.5 years as the practical demonstration of the operational requirement for her ongoing employment.30 25 Correspondence from Ms Agostini dated 12 June 2026. 26 T1-7 ll 45; T1-8 ll 1-4. 27 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [11]. 28 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, 3. 29 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 22 January 2026, [9]. 30 Ibid [5]. -- 11 of 16 -- 12 [45] While there is no 'presumption' to permanent employment at the higher classification level established by the PS Act or Directive 03/23, it is clear that what the PS Act does establish is that permanent appointment is the default basis for employment in the public sector, 31 and the clearly expressed purpose of Directive 03/23 is to support and supplement the provisions of the PS Act with respect to the review of public sector employees acting at or seconded to higher classification levels. 32 When interpreting provisions of the Act, the preferred approach is to adopt the interpretation that best achieves the purpose of the Act. 33 [46] Pursuant to s 120 of the PS Act, if the eligibility and suitability requirements have been met, as in this case, the chief executive can then decide the request. In doing so, the chief executive must have regard to the genuine operational requirements of the department and the reason for each s 120 decision previously made during the continuous period of acting at the higher classification level. [47] Pursuant to Directive 03/23, when making a decision in consideration of these factors, a chief executive is responsible for determining the genuine operational requirements of the department. [48] As stated above, if the chief executive fails to make the decision within the required time a decision not to convert the employment at the higher classification level is taken to have been made. Genuine operational requirements and ongoing need [49] Ms Dobson contended there is no genuine operational requirement precluding her from being converted to permanent appointment at the higher classification level. Ms Dobson submitted there is clear evidence of ongoing operational need. 34 [50] Ms Dobson points to her Statement of Service, which demonstrates that the Department has relied on her to perform the duties of a Guidance Officer on an ongoing basis from May 2022 through to 12 December 2025. 35 Ms Dobson contended that the length and continuity of this service exceeds the minimum period by section 120 of the Act. 36 [51] Ms Dobson's statement of service, annexed to the Appeal Notice, to the submissions filed by Ms Dobson on 5 January 2026 and to the submissions filed by the Respondent on 6 January 2026, confirms that Ms Dobson had been acting at the higher classification of Guidance Officer since 18 April 2022, and had continued to act as a Guidance Officer in 31 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 81. 32 Directive 03/23 cl 1.1 – 1.2. 33 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7; Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A; Yates v State of Queensland (Department of Justice) [2026] QIRC 212, [22]-[23] (McLennan IC). 34 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [19]. 35 Ibid [13]. 36 Ibid [14]. -- 12 of 16 -- 13 various schools right up until 12 December 2025, when she returned to her substantive position.37 [52] Ms Dobson contends that in practice, she has provided continuity of Guidance Officer Service to various schools in the area, and while some permanent guidance officers have at times been appointed, they have not remained in the role, resulting in Ms Dobson being called upon to 'meet operational need'. 38 [53] Despite arguments in submissions about the relevance of Ms Dobson being returned to her substantive role for vacation periods, there is no dispute between the parties that at the time of the review Ms Dobson was continuously engaged at the higher classification level (HO1) as a guidance officer since 2022. However, the positions subject to the review and deemed refusal are the particular Guidance Officer positions at Baringa and Maleny Schools, and not a broader consideration of Guidance Officer roles across the Region. [54] The consideration of genuine operational requirements applied in an active review are with respect to the position occupied by the employee at the time of seeking the review. It is not the same as the test applied in the context of conversion from fixed term temporary employment to permanent employment, where the assessment also includes consideration of the need for someone to be employed in the role or roles that are substantially the same.39 [55] The Department acknowledges that Ms Dobson has performed in the higher duties role 'for a period sufficient to entitle her to ask the chief executive to employ her in the position at the higher classification level' pursuant to s 120 of the PS Act.40 [56] As to Ms Dobson's assertion of ongoing operational need, the Department argue no such evidence has been provided and state in any event that the deemed decision does not reference operational need. [57] Ms Dobson reiterates that the 'ongoing and repeated engagement' at the higher classification level reveals an ongoing need. 41 [58] I agree that the ongoing backfilling of the positions reveals an ongoing need for the work of the positions to be performed in the absence of the substantive position holders. That is not the same as requiring appointment of a second permanent incumbent into that position as a higher classification level conversion. This has been considered in many 37 It was confirmed at the Mention on 5 June 2026 that Ms Dobson is currently acting in a higher classification level position of Head of Special Education Services. 38 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [8]-[9]. 39 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 114(3)(a)(i). 40 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [19]. 41 Submissions in reply of the Appellant, filed 22 January 2026, [8]. -- 13 of 16 -- 14 Commission decisions to constitute a genuine occupational requirement weighing against conversion. 42 [59] Genuine operational requirements have been discussed as follows (citations omitted): 43 As to genuine operational requirements, the decision of His Honour Merrell DP in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) remains apposite notwithstanding the enactment of the Public Sector Act, as the Department's chief executive is responsible for "managing the department in a way that promotes the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources while ensuring appropriate accountability for ethical standards and effective management and leadership of human resources." Accordingly consideration of 'genuine operational requirements:' would at least include whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department, to appoint an employee, who has been assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level in the department for the requisite period of time, to '…the position at the higher classification level.' [60] At the time of the review the Baringa position occupied by Ms Dobson had a permanent incumbent who was on parental leave. In those circumstances, had the review concluded within time, this could have been argued as a genuine operational reason to refuse permanent conversion. I note this reasoning is consistent with the refusal decision from the first higher level conversion request made by Ms Dobson, received 20 August 2024 in relation to the Guidance Officer position at Mooloolah State School (0.6 FTE). The position was not vacant with the substantive employee due to return September 2024. 44 [61] The information provided by the Department following the mention identified that the position at Maleny school was vacant at the time of the review. Rather than appoint Ms Dobson to the .4 position as a higher-level conversion, the Department prioritised a required transfer at level. 45 Appointing a person at level negated the need for a second person to be permanently employed in the position as a higher-level conversion. Overstaffing is not a genuine operational requirement [62] Ms Dobson contends that 'assertions of oversupply or overstaffing' do not explain the refusal in circumstances where Ms Dobson has been relied upon by the Department to meet ongoing operational needs across various schools.46 Ms Dobson further submits that 42 See, for example, Deans v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2025] QIRC 108; Cushing v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 252. 43 Gomez v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2024] QIRC 190, [91], citing Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203. 44 Attachment to Submissions in reply of Appellant, filed 22 January 2026, 2-3. 45 Ms Agostini confirmed at the Mention that the Department had prioritised placing an employee who was permanent at that level in the role. This would seem to accord with cl 10.5 of the Department of Education State School Teachers' Certified Agreement 2022 which provides that employees seeking transfer and relocation will continue to be prioritised before new appointments are offered. 46 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [16]. -- 14 of 16 -- 15 'claims of overstaffing are inconsistent with the Department's continued reliance' on her service. 47 [63] The Department, in reply submissions, clarified they made no assertions of overstaffing. 48 [64] The overstaffing referred to by Ms Dobson logically relates to the practical reality of there being permanent position owners who for a variety of reasons are not in their substantive positions meaning there is an ongoing temporary engagement of a second person to undertake the work during their absence. As in this case, sometimes those people are acting in those positions at a higher classification level. While each case will be determined on its own particular circumstances Ms Dobson argues those people are effectively precluded from permanent conversion at the higher classification level as it would not be reasonable for two people to be permanently employed in the same position. That is the case even where the position owner may not intend to return but has not relinquished the position. [65] While I acknowledge the frustration of ongoing temporary backfilling across multiple guidance officer positions, and Ms Dobson’s clear preference to be employed in a Guidance Officer role - the review for higher classification conversion relates only to the circumstances of the position or in this case positions occupied by Ms Dobson at the time of the review request. The Baringa Guidance Officer position already had a permanent incumbent due to return, and a decision was made in relation to the Maleny Guidance Officer position to fill the vacancy through required transfer at level. [66] In response to the additional information provided by the Department, Ms Dobson identified a third position she was undertaking at the relevant time. This position was not nominated in the request for review so is not relevant to the decision subject to appeal. Ms Dobson also queries whether the permanent owners of the two relevant positions to the appeal have or will take up those positions. The Maleny position is currently being backfilled by another permanent employee at level. [67] At the Mention, the Department and Ms Dobson confirmed that there are a number of cluster arrangements emerging for guidance officer roles within the region. Due to varying demand for Guidance Officer positions at individual schools, positions are being created at a regional, rather than school based, level. This may also lead to consideration of permanent reliever positions to reflect the reality of multiple incumbencies across schools. That seems like a sensible approach. Conclusion 47 Submissions of the Appellant, filed 5 January 2026, [19]. 48 Submissions of the Respondent, filed 6 January 2026, [19]. -- 15 of 16 -- 16 [68] For the purpose of the present appeal, the deemed decision under review relates to the higher classification positions occupied by Ms Dobson at the time of her request being Guidance Officer positions at Baringa and Maleny. It may be that the lodging of this appeal would have been rendered unnecessary if Ms Dobson had received an active decision from the Department outlining the reasons for their decision, including the consideration of genuine operational requirements as they related to the particulars of the two positions into which she sought conversion. [69] For the reasons I have given above, the deemed decision was fair and reasonable and will be confirmed accordingly. Orders 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 16 of 16 --