Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) [2026] QIRC 185

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) [2026] QIRC 185 PARTIES: Burgess, Helen (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2026/12 PROCEEDING: Public Service Appeal – Fair Treatment DELIVERED ON: 2 June 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Knight IC On the papers Appellant's written submissions filed on 9 February 2026; written submissions in reply filed on 23 March 2026; and further written submissions filed on 1 June 2026 Respondent's written submissions filed on 10 March 2026; further submissions (additional documents, including annexures to show cause notice) filed on 27 April 2026; and further written submissions filed on 27 May 2026 ORDER: Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 1 of 80 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – public sector appeal – appeal against disciplinary finding decision – whether Appellant failed to properly disclose and manage conflicts of interest arising from personal relationship with CFMEU workplace delegate and with his son, an OIR inspector – whether the Appellant failed to properly declare a conflict of interest in a recruitment activity where Appellant's partner's son was the successful applicant – whether the Appellant failed to declare and appropriately manage a conflict of interest arising from her personal relationship with her partner's son following his recruitment – whether Appellant failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from her association with a CFMEU official – whether Appellant failed to comply with directions about use of personal mobile telephone in interactions with CFMEU officials – whether findings of misconduct and contraventions of s 89 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) without reasonable excuse were reasonably open to the decision-maker – whether decision fair and reasonable – decision was fair and reasonable – decision confirmed Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service (1 January 2011) Directive 03/10: Declaration of Interests - Public Service Employees (Other than chief executives) Directive 03/24: Declaration of Interests - public sector employees excluding chief executives Directive 05/23: Discipline Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 88, s 89, s 91, s 100, s 131, s 222 Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 186 -- 2 of 80 -- 3 CASES: Office of Industrial Relations, Workplace Behaviour and Environmental Guideline Office of Industrial Relations, Conflict of Interest Information Sheet Office of Industrial Relations, Conflict of Interest Procedure Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services [2020] QIRC 067 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations) [2023] QIRC 077 Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 016 Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) Hunt v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2022] QIRC 162 Lam v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services [2021] ICQ 010 State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield [2025] ICQ 021 Spillane v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 181 O'Hearn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 283 Williams v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 228 -- 3 of 80 -- 4 Reasons for Decision [1] Ms Helen Evelyn Burgess has been employed by the State of Queensland in the Office of Industrial Relations ('OIR') since 2007.1 From on or about 19 September 2018 until February 2023, Ms Burgess held the role of Director, Construction and Field Services ('Director of CFS'), within Workplace Health and Safety ('WHS') Compliance and Field Services.2 [2] On 13 February 2023, Ms Burgess was transferred to her current role as Director, Construction Strategy, Specialist and Regulatory Services (formerly Specialised Health and Safety Services).3 Up until 24 January 2024, Ms Burgess understood that transfer to be on a temporary basis.4 [3] On 22 January 2025, Ms Burgess was directed to take indefinite special discretionary leave and was formally suspended on normal remuneration from 30 January 2025, pending the completion of an investigation into several allegations concerning her conduct whilst employed at the OIR.5 [4] On 22 December 2025, Ms Donna Heelan, Executive Director of the Electrical Safety Office, wrote to Ms Burgess and substantiated or partially substantiated five Allegations concerning Ms Burgess' conduct during the period of 2018 to 2025.6 In the same correspondence, Ms Heelan invited Ms Burgess to show cause why the proposed disciplinary action of termination of her employment should not be imposed.7 1 On 27 April 2026, the Respondent filed a bundle of documents, marked by the Registry as 'Respondent Further Submissions' ('Respondent's Further Submissions'). The bundle comprises the Investigation Report and its attachments, other materials relied on by the decision maker during the show cause process, and the attachments to the Show Cause Notice. Any references in the footnotes of this decision to the attachments to the Investigation Report and the Show Cause Notice are contained within that bundle. Respondent's Further Submissions, Investigation into allegations against a Director – Office of Industrial Relations' Investigation Report prepared by Gavin Gleeson, Director of Ethical Standards, Office of Industrial Relations, dated 25 July 2025 ('Investigation Report'), 12. 2 Investigation Report (n 1), 6. 3 The Commission requested further information in respect of Ms Burgess' current role title and commencement date, and the parties subsequently filed responses to this query. Appellant's Further Submissions dated 1 June 2026 ('Appellant's Further Submissions'); Respondent's Second Further Submissions dated 27 May 2026 ('Respondent's Further Submissions [2]'). 4 Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3). 5 Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3). 6 Appeal Notice filed 12 January 2026 ('Appeal Notice'), Schedule 1 'Letter from Ms Donna Heelan to Ms Helen Burgess dated 22 December 2025' ('Disciplinary Findings Decision'), 1, 4-10. 7 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 21-22. -- 4 of 80 -- 5 [5] On 12 January 2026, Ms Burgess filed an Appeal8 against Ms Heelan's decision.9 Ms Burgess appeals under s 131 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld).10 She challenges the five substantiated findings, in relation to Allegations 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, on the basis that Ms Heelan's decisions, in respect of those allegations, were not fair and reasonable. [6] Ms Burgess seeks that Ms Heelan's decision be set aside and substituted instead with a decision that the disciplinary findings are not substantiated. In the alternative, she submits it may be necessary to substitute a decision that some of the allegations are substantiated in part, but that no grounds for discipline under s 91 of the PS Act or grounds other than 'misconduct', exist in relation to the allegations that are substantiated.11 Nature of the Appeal [7] This appeal is made pursuant to s 131 of the PS Act,12 which identifies the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Section 131(d) of the PS Act provides that an appeal may be made against 'a fair treatment decision',13 which is defined as '… a decision a public sector employee believes is unfair and unreasonable'.14 [8] Section 134 of the PS Act allows for public sector appeals to be heard and determined under Ch. 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act')15 by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.16 [9] Section 562B of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act') provides that the purpose of an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.17 Accordingly, the issue for my determination in this appeal is whether Ms Heelan's decision was fair and reasonable. The adjectives 'fair' and 'reasonable' must be given their ordinary meaning and ought not to be interpreted according to the strict legal test of reasonableness in the sense of the lawfulness or legality of a decision.18 The appeal must be determined by reviewing the decision appealed against.19 As the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it is necessary to take its meaning from the context in which it appears.20 8 Appeal Notice (n 6). 9 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6). 10 Section 131 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act'). 11 Appellant's Submissions filed 9 February 2026 ('Appellant's Submissions'), [18]. 12 Section 131 of the PS Act (n 10). 13 Section 131(1)(d) of the PS Act (n 10). 14 Sections 129 of the PS Act (n 10). 15 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'). 16 Section 134 of the PS Act (n 10). 17 Section 562B(3) of the IR Act (n 15). 18 Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 016 ('Colebourne'), [25]. 19 Colebourne (n 18), [23]; Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) ('Goodall'), 5. 20 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261; Colebourne (n 18), [11]. -- 5 of 80 -- 6 [10] The appeal is not conducted by way of re-hearing.21 Instead, it involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision-making processes associated with it.22 [11] If the conclusions were reasonably open to the decision-maker on the materials before them,23 it is not the Commission's role to disturb that decision.24 What decisions can the Commission make? [12] In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Commission may:25 • confirm the decision appealed against; or • set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or • set the decision aside and return the issue to the decision-maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate. [13] For the reasons that follow, the Decision was fair and reasonable. Each of the five substantiated findings, and the disciplinary grounds attached to each allegation, were reasonably open to Ms Heelan on the material before her. The Decision is confirmed. The Decision [14] By letter dated 22 December 2025, Ms Donna Heelan, Executive Director of the Electrical Safety Office, OIR set out her findings26 in relation to the following allegations:27 ALLEGATION 1 (Investigation Report Allegation 1) You failed to properly disclose and appropriately manage a conflict of interest arising from your personal relationship with Paul Williams. … 21 Colebourne (n 18), [11]. 22 Goodall (n 19), 5; Section 562B(2) of the IR Act. 23 As noted at FN1, the Respondent filed the materials relied upon by the decision-maker on 27 April 2026, which included the attachments to the Investigation Report, other materials relied upon by the decision-maker, and the attachments to the Show Cause Notice. These materials are referred to throughout this decision. 24 O'Hearn v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 283, [10]; State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume (No. 3) [2024] ICQ 3, [78]-[79] ('Hume'); Schubert (n 24), [8]. 25 IR Act s 562C (n 15). 26 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6). 27 The First Show Cause Notice dated 21 October 2025 particularised seven allegations. A full copy of the allegations and the particulars within the Show Cause Notice (footnotes omitted) are annexed to these reasons. -- 6 of 80 -- 7 ALLEGATION 2 (Investigation Report Allegation 2) You failed to properly declare and appropriately manage a conflict of interest in a recruitment activity in which Nathan Williams was the successful applicant. … ALLEGATION 3 (Investigation Report Allegation 4) You failed to declare and appropriately manage a conflict of interest arising from your personal relationship with Nathan Williams. … ALLEGATION 4 (Investigation Report Allegation 3) You engaged in inappropriate communications with Marc Dennett, a former employee of OIR, including by informing him of confidential information, and discussing workplace matters with him. … ALLEGATION 5 (Investigation Report Allegation 5) You failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from your friendship or personal association with Royce Kupsch, a CFMEU official. … ALLEGATION 6 (Investigation Report Allegation 7) You failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from your friendship or personal association with Kurt Pauls, a CFMEU official. … ALLEGATION 7 (Investigation Report Allegation 8) You failed to comply with reasonable and lawful directions issued to you to not have contact with OIR clients on your personal mobile telephone. [15] Ms Heelan substantiated Allegations 1, 2, 3 and 6, partially substantiated Allegation 7, and did not substantiate Allegations 4 and 5.28 28 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 9-20. -- 7 of 80 -- 8 [16] On Allegations 1 and 2, Ms Heelan found Ms Burgess guilty of misconduct under s 91(1)(b) of the PS Act, being inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within s 91(5)(a).29 On Allegations 3 and 6, she found that Ms Burgess had, pursuant to section 91(1)(g)(i) of the PS Act contravened s 89 (Conflict of Interest provisions), without reasonable excuse.30 On Allegation 7, she found that Ms Burgess had contravened a direction without reasonable excuse, the ground in s 91(1)(d).31 Background Ms Burgess' employment history and prior disciplinary action [17] Ms Burgess has worked in OIR or its predecessors since July 2007.32 Until February 2023, she was employed in the position of Director, Construction Compliance and Field Services ('Director of CFS'). [18] As the Director of CFS, Ms Burgess' duties included:33 (a) Leading and managing a diverse team of construction inspectors and managers ensuring a high level of service delivery which is consistent and responsive. (b) Liaising with management, stakeholders and technical experts, at a State-wide level, to establish priorities, develop strategic responses, coordinate implementation and build organisational capability and responsiveness. (c) Developing strategic partnerships and working closely with key internal and external stakeholders including industry and organisational representatives, unions, principal contractors, sub-contractors, construction workers, and regional WHSQ management across the State, to ensure conflicting and competing agendas and other significant issues, which may arise on major construction projects and other high risk operations, are addressed in a manner that facilitates agreement and acceptance of mutually beneficial solutions. (d) Monitoring and reporting on strategy, programs and initiatives within the scope of the role and identify and address risks and issues impacting on achievement of objectives. 29 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 12-13; Section 91(1)(b) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('PS Act'). 30 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 15, 19; Section 91(1)(g)(i) of the PS Act (n 10). 31 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 20; Section 91(1)(d) of the PS Act (n 10). 32 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), Attachment 2 'Show Cause Notice – Liability for Discipline Findings Letter from Ms Donna Heelan to Ms Helen Burgess dated 21 October 2025' ('Show Cause Notice'), 2. 33 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 3, Attachment 2 'Position Description 'Director, Construction Compliance and Field Services (SO) Workplace Health and Safey Queensland' ('PD Director, CFS'), 2-3. -- 8 of 80 -- 9 [19] The key responsibilities of a construction inspector include:34 (a) use the powers appointed to inspectors according to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to assist the government in meeting the objectives of these Acts. (b) conduct investigations of work incidents, injuries and complaints, and prepare investigations reports. [20] Construction inspectors are required to visit construction sites where they often interact with employers, employees, health and safety representatives and union officials, including delegates from the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining Employees Union ('the CFMEU').35 [21] On 5 October 2022, Ms Burgess was the subject of a disciplinary finding and was reprimanded. Her appeal against the finding was dismissed in Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations).36 That earlier matter is relevant for one limited purpose. An email of 27 October 2022 from Mr Andrew Harris directing Ms Burgess not to use her personal phone for work purposes is now relied on,37 along with the 15 May 2020 correspondence of Mr Craig Allen, as the source of the directions said to underpin Allegation 7.38 [22] In February 2023, Ms Burgess was transferred to her present role, as a Director, Construction Strategy, Specialist and Regulatory Services,39 before being suspended on full remuneration.40 Ms Burgess was suspended without pay from 21 January 2026 to 30 June 2026.41 Investigation and First Show Cause Notice [23] On 21 October 2025, Ms Heelan issued a Show Cause Notice ('Show Cause Notice') setting out seven allegations and inviting a response from Ms Burgess.42 34 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 3. 35 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 3. 36 [2023] QIRC 077 ('Burgess'). 37 Burgess (n 36), [58]. 38 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 22-23. 39 Respondent's Further Submissions [2] (n 3); Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3), Ms Burges has provided that since her appointment to the position the OIR have referred to her as Director Specialised Health and Safety Services, and then Director Specialist and Regulatory Services. 40 Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3); Respondent's Further Submissions [2] (n 3). 41 Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3). 42 Show Cause Notice (n 32). -- 9 of 80 -- 10 [24] The Show Cause Notice particularised each allegation. Each was footnoted to a page of the Investigation Report or one of its attachments; or a document attached to the Show Cause Notice, some of which were substantial in volume.43 [25] Attachment 9 to the Show Cause Notice included approximately 1500 pages of text messages. Attachment 21 to the Investigation Report comprised WhatsApp Messenger ('WhatsApp') messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Marc Dennett.44 [26] Attachment 3 to the Investigation Report comprised text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Paul Williams between November 2021 and January 2025 and ran to over 1200 pages.45 Attachment 6 was Mr Marc Dennett's statement of 16 July 2025.46 Attachment 9 was the transcript of Mr Dennett's interview with the investigator on 18 July 2025.47 [27] Ms Burgess' solicitors sought, and were granted, two extensions. The final response date was 1 December 2025. By that point, Ms Burgess had been afforded approximately six weeks to respond to the allegations.48 Show Cause - Response [28] Ms Burgess provided a detailed written response to the allegations on 1 December 2025.49 [29] Ms Burgess denied each allegation. The Allegations [30] The substance of each of the seven allegations, together with a summary of the relevant particulars and Ms Burgess' response to the Show Cause Notice is set out below. For the sake of completeness, a full copy of the allegations and the particulars within the Show Cause Notice are annexed to these reasons. 43 Investigation Report (n 1), 63-64, 'List of Attachments' which sets out 30 attachments to the Investigation Report; Show Cause Notice (n 32), 'List of enclosed attachments' which sets out 15 attachments to the Show Cause Notice. 44 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'; Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 21 'WHATSAPP chat between HB [Helen Burgess] and MD [Marc Dennett]'. 45 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 3 'CCC Forensic Examination SMS text messages Ms Burgess and Mr Williams'. 46 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025. 47 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 9 'Marc Dennett transcript', interview conducted 18 July 2025. 48 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 2. 49 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), Attachment 1 'Response to Show Cause Notice' dated 1 December 2025 ('Response to Show Cause Notice'). -- 10 of 80 -- 11 Allegation 1 - Failure to disclose and manage a conflict arising from the personal relationship with Mr Paul Williams [31] Allegation 1 concerns Ms Burgess' relationship with Mr Paul Williams ('Mr Williams'). The Show Cause Notice particularised that Ms Burgess had been a Director of CFS, with responsibilities that included leading construction inspectors and developing relationships with industry stakeholders, including unions. Within the show cause materials, the CFMEU is identified as the largest union in the construction sector and as a stakeholder of OIR. [32] It is alleged that Ms Burgess has been in a personal relationship with Mr Williams since late 2017, that Mr Williams works in the construction industry and that he has been a CFMEU workplace delegate since 2017, along with the nominated Health and Safety Delegate at several work sites.50 Despite that relationship, Ms Burgess never made a written declaration of any conflict of interest. [33] The Show Cause Notice particularises numerous text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Williams at paragraph [18(a)] to [18(l)] discussing construction industry related matters.51 In one of the text messages, Ms Burgess told Mr Williams to leave a construction site in circumstances where his son, Senior OIR Inspector, Mr Nathan Williams, was going to be present on the site. In another, Ms Burgess and Mr Williams discussed a prohibition notice issued by OIR to Marsh Height Safety. In a third, they discussed mental health claims said to have been submitted by OIR Inspectors.52 50 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 5 'Request for an inspector to attend - Sunland Ross Street Benowa dated 14 March 2018'. 51 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 5-6 (Allegation 1, particular 18). 52 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 5-6. -- 11 of 80 -- 12 Show Cause Response Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 1 [34] During the show cause process Ms Burgess submitted the allegation should not be substantiated. [35] Upon commencing her relationship with Mr Williams in late 2017, Ms Burgess maintains she disclosed the relationship to her then line supervisor and Executive Director, Mr Marc Dennett.53 According to Ms Burgess, Mr Dennett asked her some questions about Mr Williams' role with the CFMEU, made an assessment and concluded that no conflict of interest arose because Mr Williams was not an official or employee of the union and held no position of influence.54 Ms Burgess maintains the assessment is corroborated by Mr Dennett's signed statement provided during the investigation, which records the questions he asked and the basis for his conclusion.55 [36] Ms Burgess argued the role of Mr Williams within the CFMEU must be properly understood. On her account, her partner had never been an employee or official of the union. He held the role of an elected workplace delegate.56 Ms Burgess submitted that she informed Mr Dennett each time Mr Williams changed employer and that Mr Dennett's position was that no further disclosure was required because Mr Williams did not hold sufficient authority or influence within the union to warrant declaration.57 [37] Ms Burgess denies that the communication between herself and Mr Williams involved the release of confidential information, any misuse of position or any benefit to Mr Williams or the CFMEU.58 Her position was that the communications concerned public matters, personal exchanges between partners or harmless queries. Ms Burgess submitted that a proper assessment of any alleged conflict required identification of a personal interest that conflicts or could be perceived to conflict, with Ms Burgess' work duties and responsibilities. Ms Burgess' position was that no conflict was identified.59 53 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 9-10. 54 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 10-11. 55 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 11-12; Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025. 56 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 13. 57 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 13. 58 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 13-15. 59 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 15. -- 12 of 80 -- 13 Allegation 2 - Failure to manage a conflict in the recruitment of Mr Nathan Williams [38] Allegation 2 arises out of a recruitment process within the OIR. Mr Nathan Williams, the son of Mr Paul Williams, a CFMEU delegate, applied for the position of Senior Inspector, Construction within the OIR. Ms Burgess chaired the selection panel.60 [39] The Selection Report contained Ms Burgess' declaration that she 'knew the parents of Nathan Williams personally but she was not familiar with him'.61 It is alleged this was not an accurate description of her relationship with Mr Williams' father in that she did not, in that document or to the panel, disclose that she was in a personal relationship with Mr Paul Williams or the conflict of interest arising from that relationship.62 [40] Mr Nathan Williams was subsequently recommended for appointment and commenced employment with the OIR on 3 July 2020.63 Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 2 [41] In her show cause response, Ms Burgess denied the allegation. [42] According to Ms Burgess, after learning that Mr Williams' son had applied for the role, she approached Mr Dennett and sought feedback as to how the declaration should be made.64 Ms Burgess submits that Mr Dennett's statement to the investigation corroborates her account.65 [43] Ms Burgess maintains the written declaration recorded that Ms Burgess knew Nathan Williams' parents personally, but was not familiar with Nathan himself.66 According to Ms Burgess, she had had limited dealings with Nathan, who was an adult living independently with his partner.67 Ms Burgess explained that she had experienced domestic violence in two earlier relationships and that during her professional life, experienced negative reactions as a direct result of her relationship history. For these reasons, Ms Burgess advised that she maintained a guarded and private approach to her personal affairs at work.68 60 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 8. 61 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026. 62 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 8-9. 63 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 8. 64 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 16-17. 65 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 17; Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025. 66 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 18. 67 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 18. 68 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 19. -- 13 of 80 -- 14 [44] Ms Burgess submitted that Mr Dennett, as both her line supervisor and delegate, was fully informed of the relationship and of the identity of Nathan Williams' father. Ms Burgess further submitted that she adopted the additional safeguards suggested by Mr Dennett, namely allowing the other two panel members to provide their assessments first.69 [45] According to Ms Burgess, the recommendation that Nathan Williams be appointed was unanimous. Ms Burgess considered that Nathan Williams comfortably met the criteria for one of the available positions. While Ms Burgess accepted she could have been more fulsome in her declaration, she submitted that, for the reasons explained, that course was not feasible.70 Allegation 3 - Failure to declare and manage a conflict arising from the personal relationship with Mr Nathan Williams [46] Allegation 3 concerns what occurred after Mr Nathan Williams commenced employment with the OIR. The Show Cause Notice alleges that Ms Burgess made no written declaration of any conflict of interest arising from her relationship with Nathan Williams' father, despite his commencement as an Inspector in the division she led.71 [47] Mr Nathan Williams' direct line manager was Mr Mark Houston. The Show Cause Notice identified four matters in which Ms Burgess made decisions concerning Mr Nathan Williams' employment. In July and August 2020, Ms Burgess had several email exchanges with him about working from home. On 28 October 2022, she approved a sick leave application for leave he had taken on 12 October 2022. Ms Burgess also approved Nathan Williams' attendance sheets for four consecutive pay periods between 17 September and 14 October 2022.72 Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 3 [48] Ms Burgess denied Allegation 3 on the basis that she declared her connection with Nathan Williams to Mr Dennett through the disclosure made during the recruitment process.73 According to Ms Burgess, Nathan Williams reported to a manager who sat between his position and Ms Burgess' role. For this reason, Mr Dennett considered there was little risk in Nathan Williams being part of the same line structure. However, Ms Burgess accepted that, as a matter of procedure, the more prudent course would have been to complete a written form.74 69 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 20. 70 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 20. 71 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 10. 72 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 10-11. 73 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 20. 74 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 20-21. -- 14 of 80 -- 15 [49] In response to the concerns raised about the work-from-home approvals,75 Ms Burgess' contention was that the relevant dates fell within the COVID-19 pandemic, during which most construction inspectors were working from home. According to Ms Burgess, Inspectors were encouraged not to attend the office unless required for tasks such as collecting supplies or photocopying.76 [50] On Ms Burgess' account, Nathan Williams was informed he did not need approval to work from home but should keep his supervisor advised of his whereabouts. Ms Burgess' explanation is that Mr Houston declined to engage with the centralised onboarding and training process for new inspectors and it had been necessary for her to attend to certain administrative tasks for some inspectors, including Nathan Williams.77 [51] In response to the sick leave and attendance sheets issue,78 Ms Burgess submitted that she approved sick leave taken on only one date, being 12 October 2022. Ms Burgess explained that approval of Nathan Williams' timesheets occurred during a period when the relevant Operations Manager, Mr Chris Mutton, experienced a period of ill-health. She maintains the reports were temporarily re-routed to her as an emergency measure. Ms Burgess argued the tasks undertaken were necessary and that no reasonably informed observer could regard them as involving favouritism or the risk of favouritism in respect of Nathan Williams.79 Allegation 4 - Communications with Mr Marc Dennett (not substantiated) [52] Allegation 4 concerned communication between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett (who has since moved to a different role), between February 2022 and October 2024. It was alleged that the communications involved confidential information and discussions about workplace matters.80 Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 4 [53] Ms Burgess denied the allegation. According to Ms Burgess, she had worked with Mr Dennett since 2011. She considered Mr Dennett was well placed to understand the environment in which she operated.81 Following his departure from the OIR Executive Director role in early 2022 and in the context of Ms Burgess' ongoing exposure to investigations, complaints and management action, Mr Dennett continued to function as her support person. 75 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 21-22. 76 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 21. 77 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 22. 78 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 10 (particulars 4 and 5). 79 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 23. 80 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 11-14. 81 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 24. -- 15 of 80 -- 16 [54] Ms Burgess accepted there were aspects of her communications which would have been inappropriate to share with persons outside the OIR environment. However, in circumstances where Mr Dennett was already aware of the issues in question, remained subject to his own ongoing obligations of confidentiality and was being utilised by Ms Burgess for legitimate welfare purposes with the OIR's knowledge, she argued the communications were not inappropriate.82 Allegation 5 - Association with Mr Royce Kupsch, CFMEU President (not substantiated) [55] Allegation 5 concerned Ms Burgess' association with Mr Royce Kupsch, a former president of the CFMEU. The Show Cause Notice raised concerns that Ms Burgess' personal friendship with Mr Kupsh created, at the very least, a potential or perceived conflict of interest with her duties at OIR given his position within the CFMEU, her role and a risk that a perception of bias, could undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the OIR.83 [56] The Show Cause Notice particularised the volume of text messages and calls between Ms Burgess and Mr Kupsch on her personal phone in the period July 2024 to 22 January 2025, observing she had previously been the subject of an earlier disciplinary process in relation to communicating with CFMEU officials on her personal mobile phone.84 The Show Cause Notice also referenced text messages from Ms Burgess to Mr Dennett describing regular interactions and conversations between Ms Burgess and Mr Kupsh, while he was still employed by the CFMEU, namely:85 (a) At 8.00am on 10 February 2022, you text Mr Dennett: RK had gone off about the secondary back up system being removed in the precast code. I warned harris the other week but he was a blank wall about it. Now harris is frantically trying to talk to rk and he won't take his calls. I know this because rk told me. Harris hasn't even spoken to me about it. So dumb. He should have asked me all about it so he understood and then had me talk to rk. But no. (b) At 8.02am on 10 February 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Rk is meeting with thorning this morning because he's going to give rk advice on how to make the minister listen when they try to brush them on things. He's going to tell me what he says. (c) On 5 July 2022 you text Mr Dennett telling him “The act review has been put on hold. Rk told me today”. (d) On 23 July 2022 you text Mr Dennett: Yeah I called rk this morning. This was in response to Mr Dennett saying to you “say union advice and union representation and bring cfmeu in”. 82 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 29. 83 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 15-18. 84 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 15-18. 85 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 16-17. -- 16 of 80 -- 17 (e) At 9.36pm on 23 July 2022, you text Mr Dennett: I told rk all that I spoke to him for over an hour. You relay the contents of your discussion with Mr Kupsch to Mr Dennett. (f) At 7.10pm on 13 September 2022 you text Mr Dennett: RK was sent the board papers, and it has the hsr plan in it. He called and said is this the thing I think is shit. I said yes and explained why. He wrote to the rest of the board and told them its high-level rhetoric and meaningless and shows they don't take this seriously and how could it have taken two years. Some of them have already replied and the agree with him and are going to reject it. (g) At 5.54pm on 3 February 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Rk called me today. At 6.23pm on 3 February 2023, you text Mr Dennett: …Talked about a few shitty things with the union. Asked what was going on ar work. Got angry and said they should be doing more. He seems ok. (h) At 6.19pm on 23 August 2024, you text Mr Dennett: I spoke to RK yesterday. He told me he'd spoke #2 a few times recently and he was constantly up and down and a bit of a mess. They never thought it would happen. (i) At 6.16pm on 6 September 2024, you text Mr Dennett: I spoke to RK. For an hour and a half. I listened. Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 5 [57] Ms Burgess submitted that at least until 2023, the relationship with Mr Kupsch was a professional association, not a friendship or personal association.86 Ms Burgess further submitted the relationship did not give rise to a conflict of interest. [58] According to Ms Burgess, she and Mr Kupsch did not spend personal time together and did not socialise outside of work. Ms Burgess argued the text messages relied upon span the latter half of 2024, at which point Mr Kupsch had not been employed by the CFMEU for some time and Ms Burgess had not been the contact person for right-of-entry issues since February 2023.87 Ms Burgess argued the particulars failed to establish any conflict of interest – real or potential – and highlighted no more than a good working relationship.88 86 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 29. 87 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 33. 88 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 35. -- 17 of 80 -- 18 Allegation 6 - Failure to disclose a conflict arising from the association with Mr Kurt Pauls, CFMEU Official [59] Allegation 6 concerns Ms Burgess' association with Mr Kurt Pauls. At the relevant times, Mr Pauls was the Queensland and Northern Territory work health and safety coordinator for the CFMEU and a CFMEU official.89 [60] Between 31 May 2024 and 13 January 2025, there were 117 telephone calls made from or received by Ms Burgess' personal phone and Mr Pauls' phone. Ten of those calls exceeded 20 minutes, with some over 40 minutes. Text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett between August 2022 and June 2023 referred to other conversations Ms Burgess had with Mr Pauls, namely:90 (a) At 9.32pm on 12 August 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt thinks we need to wait and see he's not buying it. (b) At 8.12pm on 13 August 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt told me rk talked over the top of him in the meeting. He said MR went harder than he thought he would at her. He said he's not getting excited until he sees her do something. I told him she's doing nothing for me and likely won't for them either. He said if she doesn't come through, they are going to go nuts. It sounds like rk was blowing his own trumpet and was trying to show off which is why he would have talked over kurt (c) At 7.57pm on 25 October 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt called me and said find out the job he was on on this date and if we have footage we'll give it to you. (d) At 7.18pm on 27 October 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Ravbar told kurt to find out if I'm a dog. In the same text exchange, you also say: Kurt defended me. Kurt's calling him back now. He wants me to go and see him. I just got off the phone from him this second. (e) At 4.18pm on 12 November 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Just spoke to kurt. Ravs told him to call KB yesterday [and] ask her who's on the panel for the ED. She wouldn't tell him other than to say union industry and her. Kurt was told to say they don't want her on the panel so he did. She was very much taken aback and says she has to be and he says no it's a conflict. You go on to relay more of your conversation with Mr Pauls over further text messages with Mr Dennett. (f) At 10.59pm on 2 December 2022, when texting Mr Dennett about applicants for a position, you wrote: When kurt said unitity water I said where else has that guy worked he went through the resume and eventually it's hall construction. Has to be him. (g) At 7.12pm on 15 March 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt says I told you to be patient I told you we'd get there when we could. 89 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 19, 21. 90 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 20-21. -- 18 of 80 -- 19 (h) At 7.54pm on 16 June 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Yeah kurt says do it and then when they don't short list from recruitment list ask why. Mr Dennett text you: If Kurt got anything he gets you shortlisted. If you don't they will be blow it up. In response, you text: Yeah that's what he said. [61] The concerns raised in the Show Cause Notice included that the frequency and length of the contact indicated a friendship or personal association extending beyond a professional relationship, and that Ms Burgess failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from her friendship or personal association with Mr Pauls, a CFMEU Official.91 Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 6 [62] Ms Burgess denied the allegation. She maintained her association with Mr Pauls was a professional one, rather than a friendship or personal association, and did not give rise to a conflict of interest.92 [63] According to Ms Burgess, the extent and nature of the dealings were well known to her line manager, and it was not suggested that disclosure or management of any conflict was required. She submitted the particulars did not identify how or why a conflict arose.93 [64] Ms Burgess further submitted that she worked closely with Mr Pauls in his role as WHS coordinator for the CFMEU from 2016. According to Ms Burgess, he shared the primary point of contact with Mr Kupsch from mid-2021 and became the sole primary point of contact after Mr Kupsch left the CFMEU, remaining so until Ms Burgess left the Director of CFS role in February 2023. According to Ms Burgess, she and Mr Pauls did not spend personal time together and did not socialise outside of work.94 [65] As to the telephone contact between 31 May 2024 and 13 January 2025 (Particular 4), Ms Burgess' account was that the calls appeared on her personal phone because, by that date, she was no longer in a role that required work-related contact with CFMEU officials. She explained that the text exchanges with Mr Dennett about her interactions with CFMEU Officials95 relate to the period prior to February 2023, when regular contact with union officials was an integral part of Ms Burgess' role.96 She argued that once the respective roles of the parties and Ms Burgess' lack of relevant influence after February 2023 are properly understood, no reasonable concern as to a conflict, actual or perceived, arises.97 91 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 19-21. 92 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 36. 93 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 36. 94 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 36. 95 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 20-21 (Particular 5). 96 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 37. 97 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 38. -- 19 of 80 -- 20 Allegation 7 - Failure to comply with directions about use of personal mobile phone [66] Allegation 7 concerns two communications said to have been directions to Ms Burgess about the use of her personal mobile phone for work purposes. [67] The first is correspondence of 15 May 2020 from Mr Craig Allen, then Deputy Director- General of OIR. Mr Allen wrote that Ms Burgess' work-related communications with clients 'must, at all times, be facilitated through official telephone, email and work-based facilities'.98 [68] The second is an email of 27 October 2022 from Mr Harris, the [then] Executive Director, WHS Compliance and Field Services.99 Mr Harris reiterated, in similar terms, the requirement to use official channels for work-related communication; namely:100 • immediately liaise with any OIR clients that assist you in your work capacity and who may still contact you through your personal mobile telephone, and advise them to contact you only on your work mobile telephone; • provide your work telephone contact number to all those clients you have contact with; • if you receive any work-related contact through your private mobile telephone, that you will immediately onforward the content to your work mobile telephone or work email address and deal with the content of any messages or work related matters in compliance with accepted OIR practices at all times. Please note that not doing so in future may be considered a matter to consider disciplinary considerations. [69] It was alleged that, contrary to the directions issued to Ms Burgess by Mr Allen and Mr Harris, Ms Burgess had contact with Mr Pauls, a CFMEU official and OIR client, on her personal mobile phone, and similar contact with Mr Kupsch. 98 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 29 'Outcome Advice Helen Burgess' dated 15 May 2020 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Craig Allen, DDG (former) OIR. 99 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 30 'Confidential Update' Email direction ('Confidential Update'), dated 27 October 2022 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Andrew Harris, ED (former) OIR. 100 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 30 'Confidential Update' (n 99). -- 20 of 80 -- 21 Ms Burgess' Response to Allegation 7 [70] Ms Burgess denied the allegation. She submitted the directions in question concerned only work-related communications. Ms Burgess' account is that she complied with the directions, ensuring that work-related conversations were conducted on her work mobile and that non-work-related conversations took place on her personal mobile phone. She argued the investigator's analysis was misdirected because it treated the allegation as if it were a further conflict of interest matter, which were, instead, the subject of separate allegations.101 [71] Ms Burgess argued there was a logical inconsistency in the way the allegation was framed. That is, the same communications relied upon in Allegations 5 and 6 to suggest a friendship or personal association, are simultaneously relied upon to suggest work-related contact in breach of direction. She submitted the two characterisations could not stand together.102 [72] The personal phone records relied on in respect of Allegation 7 spanned the period May 2024 to January 2025. According to Ms Burgess, Mr Kupsch left the CFMEU in December 2022 and she was no longer performing the Director of CFS role by February 2023. Ms Burgess submitted the discussions captured by the phone records were not work-related. Ms Burgess argued the mention of construction industry matters between persons with a long history in the industry, and in circumstances where neither held a relevant role, did not convert personal exchanges into work-related communications.103 [73] Ms Burgess' account was that all work-related calls with Mr Pauls had been conducted through her work phone, and all calls thereafter were on her personal phone, in keeping with the delineation she had been instructed to maintain.104 101 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 39-41. 102 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 40. 103 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 40-41. 104 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 40-41. -- 21 of 80 -- 22 Ms Heelan's Decision Allegation 1- Failure to disclose and manage a conflict arising from the personal relationship with Mr Paul Williams [74] Ms Heelan substantiated Allegation 1 on the balance of probabilities. She accepted Ms Burgess had been in a personal relationship with Mr Williams since late 2017, that Mr Williams worked in the construction industry, and that he was a CFMEU workplace delegate. She also accepted that Ms Burgess had verbally disclosed the relationship to Mr Dennett and had updated him when Mr Williams changed employer. Ms Heelan concluded these actions demonstrated an awareness on Ms Burgess' part that the relationship might at least give rise to a conflict or a potential conflict.105 [75] Ms Heelan did not accept that Mr Dennett's informal assessment was the only or principal reason Ms Burgess did not make a written declaration. Relying on Ms Burgess' own words during the show cause process,106 Ms Heelan found that part of the reason was due to Ms Burgess' reluctance to disclose the relationship, because that disclosure might 'provide a basis for others to make a complaint about [her]'.107 Ms Heelan concluded that Mr Williams' role as a CFMEU workplace delegate, when considered alongside Ms Burgess' role as Director of CFS, gave rise to a potential conflict of interest. That potential conflict became actual once Mr Williams' son, Mr Nathan Williams, began work as a construction inspector.108 [76] On the text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Williams, Ms Heelan found that the message in which Ms Burgess told Mr Williams to leave a site before his son arrived was a use of information obtained through her employment for personal purposes. She concluded that the discussion of a prohibition notice issued to Marsh Height Safety and the discussion of mental health claims being submitted by various inspectors, involved an exchange of information that was not publicly available. Although Ms Heelan acknowledged Ms Burgess' submissions that she valued her privacy because of past experiences, she concluded that this did not excuse the failure to make a proper written disclosure.109 [77] On those findings, Ms Heelan concluded Ms Burgess had departed from accepted standards for a senior public sector employee in the disclosure and management of a conflict of interest. 105 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 2. 106 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 4. 107 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 11. 108 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 10-11. 109 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 11. -- 22 of 80 -- 23 [78] Ms Heelan determined the conduct constituted misconduct under s 91(1)(b), being inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within s 91(5)(a).110 Allegation 2 - Failure to manage a conflict in the recruitment of Mr Nathan Williams [79] Allegation 2 was substantiated by Ms Heelan. [80] Ms Heelan found that Mr Nathan Williams, who was the son of Mr Paul Williams, applied for the position of Senior Inspector, Construction in June 2020. By then, Ms Burgess had been in a relationship with his father for at least two years, if not longer. As panel chair, Ms Burgess told the panel she 'knew the parents of Nathan Williams personally, but that she was not familiar with him'.111 Ms Burgess did not disclose her long-term relationship with Mr Paul Williams to the panel. [81] Ms Heelan concluded the declaration provided to the panel was inconsistent with the advice Mr Dennett said he had given Ms Burgess. Mr Dennett's evidence was that the declaration needed to cover the nature of the conflict. That is, a personal relationship with Mr Nathan Williams' father. Ms Heelan found it more likely than not that Ms Burgess elected not to disclose the full nature of the relationship, because doing so would have drawn attention to it and would have led to her removal from the panel.112 [82] Ms Heelan characterised the conduct as 'inherently dishonest'. By reason of that 'blatant dishonesty', she concluded Ms Burgess' conduct amounted to misconduct under s 91(1)(b) within s 91(5)(a) of the PS Act.113 110 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 12. 111 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026. 112 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 13. 113 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 13. -- 23 of 80 -- 24 Allegation 3 - Failure to declare and manage a conflict arising from the personal relationship with Mr Nathan Williams [83] Ms Heelan substantiated Allegation 3. She found that Ms Burgess made no written declaration of any conflict of interest after Mr Nathan Williams commenced employment with the OIR. She accepted Ms Burgess was not Mr Nathan Williams' substantive manager. She also accepted that during the period 17 September to 14 October 2022, Ms Burgess was approving timesheets for several inspectors who reported to Mr Chris Mutton, because he was on leave. Ms Heelan found that Ms Burgess approved sick leave for Mr Nathan Williams on 28 October 2022 and approved his attendance sheets for four consecutive pay periods.114 [84] Ms Heelan distinguished between the conflict that arose during the recruitment process (Allegation 2) and the ongoing conflict that arose after Mr Nathan Williams commenced with the OIR, arising from any decisions Ms Burgess might be asked to make concerning Nathan Williams after he became an employee. She concluded that Ms Burgess should have referred Nathan Williams' leave applications and timesheets to a different delegate. In relation to the working from home approvals, Ms Heelan found that Mr Nathan Williams dealt directly with Ms Burgess rather than with his normal line manager, Mr Houston.115 [85] Ms Heelan concluded Ms Burgess contravened s 89 of the PS Act without reasonable excuse. On that basis, she confirmed the disciplinary ground in s 91(1)(g)(i), namely, that Ms Burgess contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of the PS Act.116 Allegation 4 - Communications with Mr Marc Dennett (not substantiated) [86] Ms Heelan rejected Ms Burgess' submission that the content of her text messages to Mr Dennett were not confidential. However, she chose not to substantiate the allegation, taking into consideration Ms Burgess' long-standing relationship with Mr Dennet and his role as her support person.117 114 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 14. 115 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 14-15. 116 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 15. 117 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 24-26; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 16. -- 24 of 80 -- 25 Allegation 5 - Association with Mr Royce Kupsch, CFMEU President (not substantiated) [87] Although Ms Heelan concluded that Ms Burgess maintained a friendship or personal association with Mr Kupsch, she did not substantiate the allegation concerning Ms Burgess' alleged failure to disclose a conflict of interest arising out of her relationship with Mr Kupsch,118 in circumstances where the mobile phone records available to OIR were limited to the period after Mr Kupsch no longer worked at the CFMEU. Allegation 6 - Failure to disclose a conflict arising from the association with Mr Kurt Pauls, CFMEU Official [88] Allegation 6 was substantiated. Ms Heelan found that Mr Pauls was a CFMEU official at the relevant times. She concluded that between 31 May 2024 and 13 January 2025, Ms Burgess spoke with Mr Pauls on her personal mobile phone on 72 occasions. Ten of those calls extended for more than 20 minutes and others for more than 40 minutes. Text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett indicated that further calls were made and received between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls throughout 2022 and 2023.119 [89] Ms Heelan accepted that professional relationships were capable of being conducted on friendly terms. She concluded it was not necessary that Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls socialised in-person for the association to be capable of giving rise to a conflict. Drawing on Ms Burgess' own description of the calls as concerning 'topics of shared interest between two people who used to work closely together',120 she inferred that the conversations went to matters arising from Ms Burgess' time as Director of CFS or were otherwise relevant to CFS. She concluded that contact of that nature, occurring outside official channels and undisclosed, could erode public confidence in the OIR's independence and impartiality, if known.121 [90] For those reasons, Ms Heelan concluded Ms Burgess had contravened s 89 of the PS Act without reasonable excuse. Accordingly, the disciplinary ground in s 91(1)(g) was confirmed, namely that Ms Burgess contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of the PS Act.122 118 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 16-17. 119 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 18. 120 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 33. 121 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 19. 122 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 19. -- 25 of 80 -- 26 Allegation 7 - Failure to comply with directions about use of personal mobile phone [91] Allegation 7 was partially substantiated. Ms Heelan found that the 15 May 2020 correspondence from Mr Allen and the 27 October 2022 email from Mr Harris to Ms Burgess, considered together, constituted a clear direction that work-related communications with clients, including the CFMEU, be conducted through official channels. She referred to earlier conclusions in Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations)123 and considered the findings were consistent with treating the email as a direction.124 [92] In substantiating the allegation, Ms Heelan limited her reasoning to Ms Burgess' contact with Mr Pauls. She concluded the evidence in relation to the contact between Ms Burgess and Mr Kupsch related only to the period after his resignation from the CFMEU and could not support the same conclusion. [93] On the evidence relating to Ms Burgess' interaction with Mr Pauls, Ms Heelan inferred, on a 'more likely than not' basis, that the conversations on Ms Burgess' personal mobile phone included matters connected to the OIR's work in the construction industry. On that basis, she considered the contact was more than likely work-related and was conducted contrary to the directions given by Mr Allen and Mr Harris.125 [94] Ms Heelan concluded that pursuant to s 91(1)(d) of the PS Act, Ms Burgess had contravened, without reasonable excuse, a direction given to her by a responsible person.126 Appeal Submissions [95] Two preliminary contentions advanced during the show cause response are maintained on appeal. The first concerns the standard of proof. Ms Burgess relies on Briginshaw v Briginshaw127 and submits that the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences call for a high degree of persuasion, such that the decision- maker should not act on inexact proofs, indefinite testimony or indirect inferences.128 [96] The second is related to particularisation. Ms Burgess contends the Show Cause Notice was unfair because it referred her to the Investigation Report and its attachments for further particulars, leaving her without proper notice of the factual case she had to meet.129 123 Burgess (n 36). 124 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 19-20. 125 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 20. 126 Section 91(1)(d) of the PS Act (n 10); Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 20. 127 (1938) 60 CLR 336 ('Briginshaw'). 128 Appellant's Submissions (n 11) citing Briginshaw (n 127), 346 (Dixon J). 129 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 3. -- 26 of 80 -- 27 [97] The Respondent submits that procedural fairness was afforded throughout, the Show Cause Notice complied with cl 9.3 of Directive 05/23: Discipline130 and the Decision shows Ms Heelan carefully considered Ms Burgess' response to the Show Cause Notice.131 Allegation 1 — Relationship with Mr Paul Williams [98] Ms Burgess' position in respect of Allegation 1 is that the oral disclosure she made to Mr Dennett in late 2017, corroborated by his statement of 16 July 2025, discharged her obligation. [99] It is submitted that Mr Dennett assessed that no conflict arose, and, in those circumstances, no written declaration was required. Mr Williams' role as a CFMEU workplace delegate was, according to Ms Burgess, limited in influence. She submits the particularised text messages disclosed nothing confidential, concerned matters either already public or unrelated to OIR or were of the kind to be expected between partners. [100] In the alternative, Ms Burgess submits that, even if a breach were established, the conduct would not amount to misconduct within the meaning of s 91(5) of the PS Act. Rather, the most that could be established is the disciplinary ground in s 91(1)(g)(i), namely, that she contravened a provision of the PS Act. The relevant provision is s 89(1) of the PS Act, which provides:132 89 Conflicts of interest—public sector employee (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee's duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee's chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee's knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee's chief executive. [101] Ms Burgess maintains however that any such contravention was not without reasonable excuse in the circumstances.133 130 Public Sector Commission Directive 05/23 – Discipline (1 March 2023) ('Directive 05/23'). 131 Respondent's Submissions filed 10 March 2026 ('Respondent's Submissions'), [6]-[8]; Clause 9.3 of Directive 05/23 (n 130). 132 Section 89(1) of the PS Act (n 10). 133 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [7]. -- 27 of 80 -- 28 [102] The Respondent submits the findings were reasonably open to Ms Heelan.134 It is further submitted that the disclosure to Mr Dennett is at odds with Ms Burgess' denial that any conflict ever arose. On Mr Dennett's evidence the disclosure was itself incomplete. That is, Ms Burgess referred to Mr Williams as 'Mort' and answered 'no' to a question about whether she would have any interaction with him in the conduct of her duties. [103] Furthermore, it was not reasonable for Ms Burgess to rely on Mr Dennett's assessment, when the disclosure on which it was based was incomplete. The Respondent argues the conduct in the substantiated particulars was deliberate, continued over years and was connected to the trust and confidence assigned to a senior public sector employee. It is further submitted the characterisation of the conduct as misconduct is appropriate in the circumstances.135 [104] In Reply, Ms Burgess submits that if the finding is confined to her not completing a written declaration form, that proposition may be accepted, but it does not sustain the broader conclusions around her failure to properly disclose and manage a conflict, when she did in fact inform her manager.136 [105] It is further submitted the 'Mort' point was not put to her in the show cause notices or at interview, and that had it been raised, she would have given evidence that 'Mort' is widely known as Mr Williams' nickname and was not used to conceal his identity. Moreover, Ms Burgess contends that Mr Dennett's evidence does not establish that the use of Mr Williams' full name would have produced a different assessment.137 Allegation 2 - Recruitment of Mr Nathan Williams [106] Ms Burgess contends Mr Dennett was both her line supervisor and the delegate for the recruitment. It is further submitted that she acted on his specific advice as to the content of the declaration and the conduct of the interview. On Ms Burgess' account, she had only a handful of dealings with Mr Nathan Williams and did not consider herself familiar with him. The guarded manner of her declaration to the panel was the product of her personal history, including earlier relationships involving domestic violence. In any event, Ms Burgess submits that because Mr Dennett (the delegate) was already aware of the personal relationship with Mr Paul Williams, any recommendation Ms Burgess made could mislead the relevant decision-maker. Ms Burgess argues that even if some breach is established, her conduct was not inherently dishonest and did not amount to misconduct.138 134 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [11]. 135 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [11]-[15]. 136 Appellant's Submissions in Reply filed 23 March 2026 ('Appellant's Reply Submissions'), [1]. 137 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [1]-[4]. 138 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [8]-[10]; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 17-20. -- 28 of 80 -- 29 [107] The Respondent submits the declaration was misleading in three respects. First, that Ms Burgess advised that she knew Mr Nathan Williams' parents, when she knew only his father. Second, that Ms Burgess wrote that she knew Nathan Williams' parents personally, when she was, in fact, in a long-term personal relationship with Nathan Williams' father. Thirdly, that she has not at any point claimed to know Mr Nathan Williams' mother. It is submitted the conduct was inherently dishonest, and that the finding of misconduct was reasonably open to Ms Heelan in circumstances where Ms Burgess' reluctance to disclose, however understandable, does not excuse the conduct.139 [108] In Reply, Ms Burgess submits that there is no basis to find her use of the plural 'parents' wording was a calculated attempt to mislead and that, in any event, this position was not raised with her. She argues that the declaration, when read with her prior oral disclosure to Mr Dennett and the advice she received from him, was not misleading and that the characterisation of her conduct as inherently dishonest should not be accepted.140 Allegation 3 - Ongoing relationship with Mr Nathan Williams [109] Ms Burgess submits that, on a fair reading, Ms Heelan implicitly accepts that disclosure of Ms Burgess' connection with Mr Nathan Williams, by way of her relationship with his father, was made during the recruitment process. It is further submitted that once disclosure had been made, there was nothing improper in not making a further disclosure upon his commencement with the OIR.141 [110] Ms Burgess accepts, with the benefit of hindsight, further disclosure upon or after Mr Nathan Williams' commencement would have been prudent and that she ought to have avoided being a decision-maker in matters involving him. However, she submits that the matters in question were routine and mundane.142 [111] Ms Burgess submits Mr Nathan Williams' direct line manager was Mr Houston and Mr Mutton was the Operations Manager. She contends that her October 2022 approvals came about only because Mr Mutton was on unplanned leave between 3 and 14 October 2022. According to Ms Burgess, during that period she approved timesheets for other inspectors as well as Mr Nathan Williams. Ms Burgess submits that in respect of the correspondence concerning Mr Nathan Williams working from home, formal approval was not required during the COVID-19 period, and the email exchanges were not approvals.143 139 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [16]-[18]. 140 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [5]. 141 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [12]. 142 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [13]. 143 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 21. -- 29 of 80 -- 30 [112] In the alternative, Ms Burgess argues Allegation 3 should have been only partially substantiated as a failure to manage a potential conflict, with no disciplinary ground, and any contravention was not without reasonable excuse.144 [113] The Respondent submits that, upon Mr Nathan Williams' commencement he was employed in CFS, an area led by Ms Burgess, giving rise to an actual conflict of interest. Although Ms Burgess was not his substantive manager, there were occasions when matters concerning Nathan Williams came to her for approval. [114] Given her relationship with his father, the Respondent maintains that Ms Burgess should not have approved anything concerning Mr Nathan Williams without first disclosing the conflict. It is further submitted that the disclosure made at the recruitment stage, even if accepted as adequate at that time, did not discharge the continuing obligation that arose once he became an employee.145 [115] In Reply, Ms Burgess maintains that the disclosure made in the recruitment process was neither incomplete nor misleading. Furthermore, for the reasons given in respect of Allegation 2, the Respondent's contention should not be accepted.146 Allegation 6 - Association with Mr Kurt Pauls [116] Ms Burgess maintains the association with Mr Pauls was a professional one which was built over the years she was the Director of CFS through OIR's engagement with the CFMEU. It is submitted there is no evidentiary foundation for the inference that the relationship went beyond a professional one and that the Decision itself acknowledges that the content of the calls is not in evidence. Ms Burgess further argues that from February 2023, when she ceased to be the Director of CFS, work-related contact with CFMEU officials was no longer required.147 [117] The Respondent submits that Ms Burgess does not dispute speaking with Mr Pauls on her personal mobile phone and that this cannot be reconciled with a relationship limited to a professional one, particularly given that ten of the calls exceeded 20 minutes. It is submitted that Ms Burgess accepts she continued to communicate with Mr Pauls after she had ceased to be the Director of CFS. Although the relationship had its origins in OIR work, by the relevant period it had moved beyond a mere professional association. To the extent the shared interest was the construction industry, an industry OIR regulates, it is further submitted she ought not to have engaged in such discussions with a current CFMEU official.148 144 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [11]-[14]; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 21-23. 145 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [19]-[21]. 146 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [6]. 147 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 36; Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [15]. 148 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [22]-[24]. -- 30 of 80 -- 31 [118] In Reply, Ms Burgess submits that common sense confirms that friendly professional relationships can give rise to out-of-work conversations (including over the phone), including lengthy phone calls on a personal mobile phone, without crossing into a conflict of interest.149 Allegation 7 - Directions about use of personal mobile phone [119] Ms Burgess submits the 2020 and 2022 directions were relevant to work-related communications with OIR clients. It is submitted the communications with Mr Pauls between May 2024 and January 2025 were personal and not work-related. It is argued that calls cannot be characterised as work-related, simply because subjects connected to the construction industry came up during the calls, particularly in circumstances where Ms Burgess had, by that time, ceased to be the Director of CFS.150 [120] Ms Burgess argues Ms Heelan's decision itself acknowledges that there is no specific evidence about the content of the calls. She further highlights a tension in the Respondent's case. That is, the same telephone evidence is relied on in respect of Allegation 6 to establish a personal association beyond a professional one, and under Allegation 7 to establish work- related contact. Ms Burgess maintains the two approaches do not easily sit together.151 [121] The Respondent submits that Ms Burgess admits she had contact with at least one OIR client (Mr Pauls) on her personal mobile phone. If that contact included work-related matters, the direction was contravened. Furthermore, that Ms Burgess had been issued with a work mobile phone and any work-related contact with OIR clients should have been conducted on that line, where it could be monitored.152 [122] Given the directions and the earlier Burgess decision,153 it is argued that Ms Burgess could have had no doubt that her communications with OIR clients needed to be capable of withstanding scrutiny.154 149 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [7]-[8]; Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [15]; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 36-38. 150 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [16]-[17]. 151 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [9]; Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [16]-[17]; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 39-40. 152 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [26]. 153 Burgess (n 36). 154 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [25]-[26]. -- 31 of 80 -- 32 Was Ms Heelan's decision fair and reasonable? [123] The question of whether the decision was fair and reasonable must be considered by reference to the legislative and policy framework governing the decision-making process.155 Legislative and Policy Framework Ms Burgess' obligations in respect of conflicts of interest [124] For conduct occurring before 1 March 2023, the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ('PS Act 2008') is relevant.156 Section 186 required a public service employee with an interest that conflicted, or might conflict, with the discharge of duties to disclose the nature of the interest and conflict and prohibited the employee from taking action unless authorised.157 [125] On 1 March 2023, the Act was repealed and replaced by the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld).158 Section 88 of the PS Act enables a chief executive to direct an employee to prepare and provide a statement of interests.159 [126] Section 89 of the PS Act is the central provision engaged by Allegations 1, 2, 3 and 6 in respect of conduct occurring on or after 1 March 2023, namely:160 (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee's duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee's chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee's knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee's chief executive. [127] Section 91 of the PS Act sets out the disciplinary grounds. Three are relevant in this appeal, namely: s 91(1)(b) (misconduct); s 91(1)(d) (contravention of a direction given by a responsible person, without reasonable excuse); and s 91(1)(g)(i) (contravention of a provision of the PS Act, without reasonable excuse).161 155 Hunt v State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) [2022] QIRC 162, [79]-[83], [85], citing Wirth v Mackay HHS & Anor [2016] QSC 39, [25], Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (2015) 256 CLR 326, [35]-[36], [57], [61]; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1. 156 Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) ('PS Act 2008'). 157 Section 186 of the PS Act 2008 (n 156). 158 PS Act (n 10). 159 Section 88(1)-(4) of the PS Act (n 10). 160 Section 89 of the PS Act (n 10). 161 Sections 91(1)(b), (d) and (g)(i) of the PS Act (n 10). -- 32 of 80 -- 33 Misconduct [128] Section 91(5) defines misconduct as inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity.162 [129] Section 89 of the PS Act substantially replicates the disclosure obligation in s 186 of the PS Act 2008. That is, the duty to disclose, the prohibition on taking action without authorisation and the chief executive's power to direct resolution, are common to both. Section 89 adds an express timing requirement and extends the prohibition to 'further action', as well as initial action.163 [130] Section 186 of the PS Act 2008 applies to conduct occurring before 1 March 2023, and s 89 of the PS Act applies to conduct on or after that date. Allegations 1, 2 and 3 concern conduct said to have commenced before 1 March 2023, including the relationship with Mr Paul Williams from late 2017 and the work-from-home approvals between 2020 and 2022. The particulars also capture events after 1 March 2023. Those allegations therefore engage the conflict of interest provisions in both Acts. [131] The communications underlying Allegations 6 and 7 occurred from 31 May 2024 onwards and engage only the PS Act. However, the historical period of association underlying Allegation 6, such as interactions between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls from 2016, pre-date the commencement of the PS Act and arose during the operation of the PS Act 2008. Directive 03/10 and Directive 03/24: Declaration of Interests [132] Public Service Commission Directive 03/10, Declaration of Interests – Public Service Employees (Other than Chief Executives) ('Directive 03/10'),164 was in force from 9 July 2010 until 13 June 2024. [133] Directive 03/10 required disclosure of pecuniary and relevant non-pecuniary interests of the employee, the employee's partner and any dependents.165 An employee who identified a conflict or potential conflict was required to disclose it to the chief executive and not to take action, unless authorised.166 Where the employee's interests changed so as to alter the potential for a conflict, a revised Declaration of Interests was to be submitted within one month after the relevant facts came to the employee's knowledge.167 162 Section 91(5)(a) of the PS Act (n 10). 163 Section 89 of the PS Act (n 10). 164 Public Service Commission, Directive 03/10: Declaration of Interests – Public Service Employees (Other than Chief Executives) ('Directive 03/10'). 165 Clause 5.3 of Directive 03/10 (n 164). 166 Clause 5.4 of Directive 03/10 (n 164). 167 Clauses 5.5 and 5.5.2 of Directive 03/10 (n 164). -- 33 of 80 -- 34 [134] Directive 03/24, Declaration of Interests - public sector employees excluding chief executives ('Directive 03/24') commenced on 14 June 2024 and superseded Directive 03/10.168 Directive 03/24 provides detail to support legislative requirements to declare interests and disclose conflicts of interest that apply to public sector employees. It is made under ss 88 and 222 of the PS Act.169 [135] Directive 03/24 expressly identifies three forms of conflict, namely:170 (a) actual (one that exists in fact); (b) perceived (one that might reasonably appear to others to be capable of affecting the performance of duties); and (c) potential (where it is foreseeable that a current interest may give rise to a conflict in the future). [136] It treats a conflict as any situation that may cause, or may be perceived as capable of causing, an employee to put personal interests ahead of duties.171 [137] For a personal interest to give rise to a conflict, there must be a logical connection between that interest and an official matter the employee is considering, being one capable of affecting, or being perceived to affect, the decision or action, or compromising the employee's judgment.172 [138] An employee with an interest creating an actual, perceived or potential conflict must disclose the circumstance to the chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts become known, must not take or continue action on the matter unless authorised, and must work with the agency to put appropriate mitigation in place.173 [139] Where an employee's official responsibilities or interests change, the employee is to consider whether the change calls for further disclosure under s 89 of the PS Act.174 168 Public Service Commission, Directive 03/24: Declaration of Interests ('Directive 03/24'). 169 Clauses 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 15.1 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 170 Clause 9.2 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 171 Clauses 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 172 Clause 9.4 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 173 Clause 9.6 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 174 Clauses 10.11, 10.12, 10.13 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). -- 34 of 80 -- 35 Comparison [140] Directive 03/24 retains the central obligations found in Directive 03/10 of initial disclosure, prohibition on unauthorised action and revised disclosure on a change of circumstances. It expressly defines actual, perceived and potential conflicts (a framework not articulated in the earlier Directive) and adopts a continuing obligation on the employee to consider further disclosure when responsibilities or interests change, in place of the fixed one-month timeframe in Directive 03/10. Application to allegations [141] Directive 03/10 applies to Ms Burgess' conduct up to and including 13 June 2024 and is engaged in respect of the disclosure obligations underlying Allegations 1, 2 and 3, and the historical association underlying Allegation 6. Clause 5.5.2 of Directive 03/10 is of particular relevance to Allegations 1 and 3. Directive 03/24 applies from 14 June 2024 and is engaged in respect of the communications underlying Allegations 6 and 7. Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service [142] The Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service ('the Code'), approved under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld), commenced on 1 January 2011 and has continued in force throughout the period relevant to each of the allegations.175 Its first principle, integrity and impartiality, acknowledges the primacy of the public interest and the requirement that conflicts of interest be resolved or managed in its favour.176 [143] Clause 1.2 of the Code records that the wrongdoing in a conflict-of-interest case lies in failing to disclose and manage the conflict. The clause requires employees to always disclose a personal interest that could be seen, now or in the future, as influencing the performance of duties, to participate actively in resolution strategies and to ensure conflicts are resolved in the public interest.177 [144] Clause 4.4 of the Code deals with information. Employees are to treat official information with care, use it only for the purpose for which it was collected or authorised, store it securely, limit access to those needing it for legitimate purposes and not use confidential or privileged information to further personal interests.178 175 The Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service (1 January 2011) ('Code of Conduct'). 176 Code of Conduct (n 175) 'Application' and 'Ethics Principles', 2-3. 177 Clause 1.2 of the Code of Conduct (n 175). 178 Clause 4.4 of the Code of Conduct (n 175). -- 35 of 80 -- 36 OIR internal Policies and Guidelines [145] Within the OIR, the Workplace Behaviour and Environmental Guideline ('WBEG') was the relevant internal instrument for the management of conflicts of interest from a date predating 2018 until 2022.179 [146] Section 9 of the WBEG required public sector officials to ensure that the use of official powers or position did not give rise to an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. An uncertain employee was directed to consult their manager or, where that person might be involved, the next-level manager or OIR Ethical Standards via OIR HR. An employee with a private interest capable of influencing or appearing to influence a decision was required to disclose the interest in writing by completing a Conflict of Interest Declaration form and to take no further action affected by the conflict, unless authorised by the Deputy Director-General or delegate.180 [147] The OIR Conflict of Interest Information Sheet, which complemented the WBEG, was in effect until 31 July 2023.181 It required a person who might hold a conflict of interest to discuss the interest with their supervisor and, where necessary, complete a Conflict of Interest Declaration form.182 Where the potential for a conflict changed, the employee was to speak with their line manager and, if necessary, submit a revised declaration within 14 calendar days of first learning of the change or earlier if the change was significant.183 [148] The OIR Conflict of Interest Procedure was approved on 10 June 2024 and superseded the OIR COI Information Sheet.184 It applies the principles in the Code of Conduct and Directive 03/24 to OIR's circumstances.185 Its principles include that responsibility for recognition rests with the employee, that personal preferences should not influence official decision-making, that having a conflict is not itself wrongdoing but failing to disclose and manage one may be and that all conflicts must be declared, registered and resolved in favour of the public interest.186 179 Workplace Behaviour and Environmental Guideline, Office of Industrial Relations (effective until 2022) ('WBEG'). 180 Section 9 of the WBEG (n 179). 181 Conflict of interest information sheet, Office of Industrial Relations (effective until 31 July 2023) ('COI Information Sheet'). 182 COI Information Sheet (n 181), 2-3. 183 COI Information Sheet (n 181), 3. 184 Conflict of Interest Procedure, Office of Industrial Relations (approved 10 June 2024) ('COI Procedure'). 185 COI Procedure (n 184), 1. 186 COI Procedure (n 184), 'Principles', 2-3. -- 36 of 80 -- 37 [149] The OIR COI Procedure prescribes a four-step process:187 1. Identify; 2. Declare; 3. Assess and Consider; and 4. Review. [150] The OIR Procedure then sets out both further information and requirements under each of those steps. [151] Where there is a change in an employee's interests such that a conflict is significantly altered, the employee must formally advise their manager immediately.188 Application to Allegations [152] The WBEG was operative until 2022 and is engaged in respect of Allegations 1, 2 and 3, and the earlier portion of Allegation 6 to the extent the relevant conduct occurred before 2022. The OIR COI Information Sheet was in effect until 31 July 2023 and is engaged in respect of conduct up to that date, including the COVID-period work-from-home approvals for Nathan Williams in 2020–2022 and the 2022 sick leave and timesheet approvals underlying Allegation 3, as well as the continuing relationships underlying Allegations 1 and 6. The OIR COI Procedure, approved on 10 June 2024, is engaged in respect of the particularised communications underlying Allegations 6 and 7 occurring on or after that date. Directive 05/23: Discipline [153] Directive 05/23: Discipline ('Directive 05/23'), took effect on 1 March 2023 and is made pursuant to ss 100 and 222 of the PS Act.189 The purpose of Directive 05/23, amongst other things, is to outline the process for undertaking disciplinary processes in accordance with the PS Act. [154] It requires discipline processes under Chapter 3 of the PS Act to be conducted in a timely, fair, appropriate and proportionate way that complies with the Act, the Directive and the principles of procedural fairness.190 187 COI Procedure (n 184), 'Process', 5-7. 188 COI Procedure (n 184), 'Variation of interests', 7-8. 189 Clauses 1.1, 2.1 of Directive 05/23 (n 130). 190 Clause 4.10 of Directive 05/23 (n 130). -- 37 of 80 -- 38 [155] Clause 9.4 governs the decision on grounds of discipline. The chief executive must review all relevant material, decide on the balance of probabilities and for each finding explain the finding of fact, identify the evidence relied on and state whether the disciplinary ground is established.191 [156] The Balance of probabilities is defined as the civil standard, with the strength of evidence varying according to the seriousness of the allegations, the inherent likelihood of the events and the gravity of the consequences.192 Consideration [157] The purpose of this appeal is to decide whether the Decision of 22 December 2025 was fair and reasonable.193 The primary issue is whether the five substantiated findings, and the disciplinary grounds attached to them, were reasonably open to Ms Heelan on the materials before her. Threshold issue - Procedural fairness and particularisation Whether the First Show Cause Notice properly particularised the allegations [158] Directive 05/23 requires the chief executive to provide written details of each allegation, including the particulars and the disciplinary ground engaged, with copies of relevant evidence and a minimum of 14 days for response.194 [159] Each allegation in the Show Cause Notice issued to Ms Burgess was set out under a heading, with numbered particulars.195 The particulars were linked to a specific page or attachment of the Investigation Report or an attachment of the Show Cause Notice itself. The applicable disciplinary grounds under s 91 of the PS Act were identified. Ms Burgess was given 21 days to respond. The time frame was extended twice on her solicitors' request to approximately six weeks.196 The Response that followed engaged with each allegation and the particulars and exceeds 40 pages.197 [160] Ms Burgess' primary argument is that the references to the Investigation Report and its attachments, including one attachment of over 1200 pages, deprived her of the ability to properly respond to the allegations. In my view, that contention is unsustainable on the materials and the relevant Directive. 191 Clause 9.4(a), (c) of Directive 05/23 (n 130). 192 Directive 05/23 (n 130), 'Definitions'. 193 Section 562B(3) of the IR Act (n 15); Colebourne (n 18), [25]. 194 Clause 9.3 of Directive 05/23 (n 130). 195 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 2-23. 196 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 2. 197 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49). -- 38 of 80 -- 39 [161] Clause 9.3(d) of Directive 05/23 does not require the chief executive to reproduce the underlying evidence in the body of the show cause notice. Rather, it requires the provision of a copy of all evidence relevant to the facts considered, including specific references, where relevant, to page or paragraph numbers.198 The volume of evidence and materials provided to Ms Burgess does not of itself render the process unfair. Allegations of conduct over a sustained period will often rest on a substantial body of material. [162] Clause 9.3(d) clearly requires full disclosure of 'all evidence relevant to the facts considered by the chief executive for each allegation'.199 [163] Historically, the Commission has found that a failure to provide an employee with all evidence relied upon can render a decision not fair and reasonable, that may warrant the decision being set aside. In Williams v State of Queensland (Queensland Health),200 Industrial Commissioner O'Neill set aside a disciplinary finding, one of the reasons for doing so being that the Appellant had not been provided with relevant records relied upon by the decision-maker, observing:201 In my view the Appellant to some extent was given an impossible task to provide an appropriate show cause response given the information provided to her. In the submissions provided in support of the Appeal Notice, the Appellant notes that she could have adduced further and more significant evidence if patient records were reviewed by her. The failure by the Respondent to inform the Appellant of her ability to request access to the various patients' medical records, and to afford her the opportunity to view those records prior to providing her response to the show cause notice in my view means that the process adopted in this disciplinary process was not fair. (emphasis added) [164] Similarly, in Spillane v State of Queensland (Queensland Health),202 I recently found that the decision-maker's failure to provide the appellant with certain materials relied upon by the decision-maker constituted non-compliance with Directive 05/23 and denied the appellant natural justice.203 [165] In Ms Burgess' case, the detail contained in the Show Cause Response is inconsistent with the contention that the case was not properly understood.204 [166] In my view, the Show Cause Notice complied with cll 9.3(b), (d) and (e) of Directive 05/23. 198 Clause 9.3(d) of Directive 05/23 (n 130). 199 Clause 9.3(d) of Directive 05/23 (n 130). 200 [2025] QIRC 228 ('Williams'). 201 Williams (n 200), [104]-[105]. 202 Spillane v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 181 ('Spillane'). 203 Spillane (n 202), [108], [133]. 204 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 10-40. -- 39 of 80 -- 40 Was the 'Mort' point properly raised with Ms Burgess? [167] Ms Burgess submits in Reply that the contention that her disclosure to Mr Dennett was incomplete because she referred to Mr Williams as 'Mort' was not put to her during the show cause process or at her interview with the investigator.205 [168] Within the decision, the reference to the nickname is part of a broader observation that the disclosure to Mr Dennett, on Mr Dennett's own evidence, was limited in content. Ms Heelan's conclusions do not depend on the 'Mort' point alone. Second, the disclosure to Mr Dennett was a private oral discussion, not a written declaration of the kind contemplated by Directive 03/24 and OIR COI Procedure, and not the formal mitigation contemplated by s 89(1)(b).206 [169] In my view, Allegation 1 stands on the Decision's own reasoning and does not require the 'Mort' point to be substantiated. For these reasons, the 'Mort' procedural fairness contention does not render the finding on Allegation 1 unfair or unreasonable. Whether the 'plural parents' point was properly raised? [170] Ms Burgess submits in Reply that whether she deliberately used the plural 'parents' to mislead was not put to her in the show cause process or in her interview with the investigator.207 [171] Allegation 2 in the Show Cause Notice particularised the misleading-declaration finding. Within the Show Cause Notice, it is alleged that the declaration that Ms Burgess 'knew the parents of Nathan Williams personally but [she was] not familiar with him' was misleading, and that she should have disclosed her relationship with Mr Nathan Williams' father. The Decision concluded that Ms Burgess should have disclosed to the panel that she was in a relationship with Nathan Williams' father, that her relationship with Mr Williams went further than 'knowing' him personally and that she did not know Nathan Williams' mother personally.208 [172] It seems to me that the substance of the misleading-declaration finding was properly raised. What may not have been raised in those terms was the specific grammatical use of the word 'parents' as carrying an implication that Ms Burgess knew both. That is a nuance of the broader finding, not a separate conclusion.209 205 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [3]-[4]. 206 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 10-11; Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025, [7]-[16], Attachment 9 'Marc Dennett transcript', interview conducted 18 July 2025, 28-20; Clauses 26, 27 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 207 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [3]-[4]. 208 Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [16]-[18]. 209 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Allegation 2 Particulars; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 12-13. -- 40 of 80 -- 41 [173] The Decision's reasoning does not depend on a finding that the use of the plural was deliberate. It depends on the observation that the declaration conveyed knowledge of both parents (which was inaccurate as to Nathan Williams' mother and described mere knowledge of his father) which understated the nature of the relationship.210 Both propositions were within the Show Cause Notice.211 [174] The 'plural parents' procedural-fairness contention does not render the finding on Allegation 2 unfair or unreasonable.212 Allegation 1 - Relationship with Mr Paul Williams Whether the oral disclosure to Mr Dennett discharged the obligation under s 89 of the PS Act [175] The first question is whether it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that Ms Burgess failed to properly disclose and manage a conflict of interest notwithstanding the oral disclosure made to Mr Dennett in late 2017. The relevant provisions are s 89(1) of the PS Act, cll 9 and 10 of Directive 03/24, cll 1.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Conduct and the OIR COI Procedure.213 The duty is personal to the employee, continuing (in this context) and engaged not only by an actual conflict, but by an interest that may conflict with the discharge of duties. [176] Ms Heelan accepted that the oral disclosure was made but concluded that the very fact that Ms Burgess made the disclosure and updated Mr Dennett whenever Mr Williams changed employer, indicated that she recognised the relationship at the very least might give rise to a conflict. [177] In relation to the oral disclosure – the 2017 discussion between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett was informal, no contemporaneous record was made, Mr Dennett gave no direction that a written declaration be filed and no advice was sought from OIR Human Resources, Ethical Standards or the Deputy Director-General.214 Mr Dennett expressly instructed Ms Burgess to inform him of any significant change in circumstances, so that the matter might be reconsidered.215 210 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 12-13. 211 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 8-9. 212 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 18-19. 213 Section 89(1) of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 9 and 10 of Directive 03/24 (n 168); Clause 1.2 and 4.4 of the Code of Conduct (n 175); COI Procedure (n 184), 'Principles', 2-3. 214 Investigation Report (n 1), 13-18. 215 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 9-11; Investigation Report (n 1), 8-18, Attachment 9 'Marc Dennett transcript', interview conducted 18 July 2025, 28-20 and Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025, [7]-[16]; Clauses 26, 27 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). -- 41 of 80 -- 42 [178] Ms Burgess maintains that having disclosed orally to Mr Dennett and received his assessment that no conflict arose, she was entitled to rely on that assessment and was under no obligation to file a written declaration. That contention fails. [179] The conclusion Ms Heelan drew, namely that Ms Burgess herself recognised at least the prospect of a conflict, was reasonably open. The framework imposes a personal and continuing duty. An informal oral discussion, unaccompanied by any written record or formal authorisation does not discharge the obligation under s 89, particularly where the relationship is between a senior officer of a regulator and a workplace delegate of a regulated stakeholder. [180] The conclusion that the oral disclosure did not, of itself, discharge the obligation under s 89 was reasonably open on the material before Ms Heelan. Whether the continuing obligation was engaged and not discharged [181] Section 89 is a continuing obligation, engaged whenever an interest conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of duties. Clauses 10.11, 10.12 and 10.13 of Directive 03/24 and the 'Variation of interests' provision of the OIR COI Procedure confirm this approach.216 [182] A series of material changes engaged the continuing obligation. [183] Relevantly, at certain times during her employment, Ms Burgess was on notice of external investigations into alleged inappropriate association between herself and the CFMEU.217 In her Show Cause Response, Ms Burgess describes several complaints which have been referred to the Crime and Corruption Commission ('CCC') since 2018. 218 216 Section 89(1) of the PS Act (n 10); Clauses 10.11, 10.12, 10.13 of Directive 03/24 (n 168); COI Procedure (n 184), 'Variation of interests', 7-8. 217 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 4-8. 218 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 4-8. -- 42 of 80 -- 43 [184] On 14 March 2018219 and 11 April 2018,220 Ms Burgess, having been contacted by CFMEU officials seeking inspectorate assistance at workplaces where Mr Williams was nominated as the CFMEU contact, sent emails to her line reports, directing those reports to meet with her partner for the conduct of regulatory duties. [185] Separately, in July 2020, Mr Nathan Williams, the son of Ms Burgess' partner, commenced as a Senior Inspector in the directorate she led. Thereafter, following Mr Dennett's separation from the OIR in early 2022, Ms Burgess reported successively to Mr Andrew Harris and Ms Stacey Ozolins in acting Executive Director, CFS roles.221 [186] No further disclosure was made by Ms Burgess on any of these occasions. [187] The framework does not impose a one-and-done approach. The personal relationship between Ms Burgess and Mr Williams engaged the continuing obligation each time a material change in circumstances arose. [188] In those circumstances, it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that the continuing obligation was triggered no later than April 2018, was engaged repeatedly thereafter and was not properly discharged. Whether the text messages involved confidential information or misuse of position [189] The next question is whether it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to conclude that the text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Williams involved the sharing of confidential information obtained through her employment, or the misuse of her position. The relevant framework is s 89(1)(b) of the PS Act, cl 4.4 of the Code of Conduct and Directive 03/24.222 219 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 5, 'Request for an inspector to attend - Sunland Ross Street Benowa dated 14 March 2018'. In this email correspondence Ms Burgess directed OIR Inspectors attendance at a Sunland project location at Ross Street, Benowa in response to a CFMEU request. The line Executive Director of Ms Burgess (Marc Dennett) was carbon copied to this email. Within those communications Ms Burgess advised, 'The HSR the CFMEU asked to be contacted when on site is Paul Williams'. 220 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 5A' Request for an inspector to attend - Sunland Ross Street Benowa dated 11 April 2018'. In this email correspondence Ms Burgess requested to WHSQ Assessment Services, including Mr Dennett as a carbon copy, for Inspector attendance at the Sunland project. Ms Burgess informed in the email 'The CFMEU (Scott Vink) has requested an inspector attend the Sunland project at Ross Street Benowa'. Ms Burgess also wrote, 'The CFMEU are not on site. Paul Williams is the HSR and has requested that the inspector contact him on arrival at site'. 221 Investigation Report (n 1), 16. 222 Section 89(1)(b) of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 4.4 of the Code of Conduct (n 175); Directive 03/24 (n 168). -- 43 of 80 -- 44 [190] The first message, in which Ms Burgess told Mr Williams in directive terms to leave a site if his son was being sent there, is best read on its own content. Ms Burgess characterises the exchange as a personal communication between partners. That characterisation does not explain the direction ('you need to leave'), which goes beyond the conveying of information.223 [191] On this basis, it was reasonably open to find that Ms Burgess was using information obtained through her employment for personal purposes to benefit either Mr Williams or his son. [192] The second message concerned the prohibition notice issued by the OIR to Marsh Height Safety.224 The details of such notices are not publicly known. Although Ms Burgess contends that Mr Williams may have seen the notice independently, she has not established that the safety concerns identified within the notice were in the public domain. It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to characterise the exchange as the discussion of information obtained through Ms Burgess' employment, which was not otherwise public. [193] The third message concerned mental health claims being submitted to WorkCover by inspectors and the asserted role of one individual in encouraging them.225 This was not publicly available information. Ms Burgess characterises the exchange as mere gossip. That characterisation does not assist her. The sharing of information about a regulator's workforce with a person connected to a regulated stakeholder is precisely the type of conduct which s 89 of the PS Act and the Code of Conduct are directed against. [194] Together, the three messages identify acts of disclosure and direction. It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that the text messages involved confidential information obtained through her employment and the misuse of her position. Whether the conduct was properly characterised as misconduct [195] The remaining question is whether it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to characterise the substantiated conduct as misconduct under ss 91(1)(b) and 91(5)(a) of the PS Act, rather than as a contravention of s 89 without reasonable excuse under s 91(1)(g)(i), having regard to cl 9.3(c) of Directive 05/23.226 223 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 5 'SMS from Burgess to Williams at 9.35am on 9 January 2023'. 224 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 6 'SMS from Burgess to Williams at 3.13pm on 24 August 2024'. 225 Show Cause Notice (n 32), 6 'SMS from Burgess to Williams at 12.34pm on 17 September 2024'. 226 Sections 91(1)(b), (g)(i), 91(5)(a) of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 9.3 of Directive 05/23 (n 130). -- 44 of 80 -- 45 [196] The President of the Industrial Court has recently considered the scope of s 91(5)(a) in State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Nield.227 Section 91(5)(a) applies to conduct in an official capacity and, unlike s 91(5)(b), imports no requirement that the conduct reflect seriously and adversely on the employer. Historically, the Commission has identified categories of misconduct that are not exhaustive. For example, a deliberate departure from accepted standards, serious negligence to the point of indifference and an abuse of the privilege and confidence enjoyed by an employee. Subjective knowledge of wrongdoing is not necessary. The nature of the obligation and the nature of the breach may indicate misconduct, without more.228 [197] The obligation under s 89, supported by Directive 03/24, cl 1.2 of the Code of Conduct and the OIR COI Procedure, is directed to preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of public sector decision-making. Three aspects that are unique to this matter, sharpen its application. Ms Burgess was a senior officer at Director level in a regulatory environment with oversight of the construction industry. Her long-term partner was a CFMEU workplace delegate, and at times a CMFEU safety representative, in that industry. Ms Burgess' partner's son became, from July 2020, an inspector in the directorate she oversaw. [198] The breach was not a failure of form. It involved a choice not to complete a written declaration, in part out of concern that disclosure would expose Ms Burgess to complaints. It involved a failure to revisit the informal arrangement with Mr Dennett and other relevant OIR staff as circumstances materially changed, notwithstanding Mr Dennett's express instruction to do so. It also involved non-disclosure to two successor managers in acting ED, CFS roles after Mr Dennett's departure from the role. [199] Other acts included the emails of 14 March 2018 and 11 April 2018, directing line reports to meet her partner for regulatory purposes and the three text messages already discussed.229 227 [2025] ICQ 021 ('Nield'). 228 Nield (n 227), [58]-[70], [75]; Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services [2020] QIRC 067 ('Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services'), [36] (Merrell DP), affirmed in Lam v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services [2021] ICQ 010 ('Lam'). 229 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 13; Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 5 'Request for an inspector to attend - Sunland Ross Street Benowa dated 14 March 2018', Attachment 5A 'Request for an inspector to attend - Sunland Ross Street Benowa dated 11 April 2018', Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025, [9]- [14]; Email correspondence from Burgess to OIR Inspectors (cc Dennett) dated 11 April 2018; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 4-5. -- 45 of 80 -- 46 [200] Conduct of that kind falls within the category of an abuse of the privilege and confidence enjoyed by an employee, recognised in Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services, affirmed in Lam, and endorsed in Nield.230 As Director of CFS, Ms Burgess had access to information about OIR operations and the exercise of its regulatory power. The findings establish that such information was shared with a person to whom she was personally connected, who himself had a direct connection to a regulated stakeholder, on a personal mobile phone, without adequate disclosure of the underlying relationship. [201] The OIR exercises regulatory functions. The CFMEU is a principal stakeholder in one of the sectors it regulates. Ms Burgess had previously been the subject of external investigation into alleged inappropriate association between herself and the CFMEU. The risk that her undisclosed personal relationship with a CFMEU workplace delegate could compromise the integrity of OIR's regulatory functions was acute. [202] Ms Burgess maintains the matter is one of form and that the absence of a written declaration is a discrete failing best captured by s 91(1)(g)(i), not misconduct under s 91(5)(a). This contention does not engage with the assessment of s 91(5)(a) contemplated in Nield.231 [203] The conduct here, in its nature, duration and context goes well beyond a failure to complete a form. The conclusion does not depend on whether Ms Burgess knew she was acting improperly. Even if her account of her own state of mind is accepted in full, the account of her conduct stands .232 [204] It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to characterise the substantiated conduct as misconduct under ss 91(1)(b) and 91(5)(a), rather than as a contravention of s 89 under s 91(1)(g)(i). The characterisation is supported by an application of the statutory definition consistent, with Nield.233 [205] Allegation 1 is confirmed. 230 Nield (n 227), [58]-[70], [75]; Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services (n 228), [36] (Merrell DP); Lam (n 228). 231 Nield (n 227). 232 Nield (n 227), [75]; Clause 9.5(d)(ii) of Directive 05/23 (n 130); Appeal Notice (n 6), Section 2. 233 Nield (n 227). -- 46 of 80 -- 47 Allegation 2 - Recruitment of Mr Nathan Williams Whether the written declaration discharged the conflict of interest obligation [206] The first question is whether it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that Ms Burgess failed to properly declare and manage a conflict of interest in the recruitment of Mr Nathan Williams. The relevant framework is s 89(1) of the PS Act, cl 9 of Directive 03/24, cl 1.2 of the Code of Conduct, and the OIR COI Procedure.234 Clause 9.6(a) of Directive 03/24 calls for a full declaration of conflicts of interest, and cl 1.2 of the Code is to the same effect.235 [207] The recruitment was for the position of Senior Inspector (Construction) on the Gold Coast (Job Reference QLD 333251/19). Ms Burgess chaired the panel, with Mr Michael Gibson (Director, Electrical Safety Office) and Mr Benjamin Bailey (Manager, Inspectorate Policy and Support) as other members of the selection panel. Of the 29 applicants, three (including Mr Nathan Williams) were shortlisted and subsequently participated in an interview. The panel signed the Selection Report, and Mr Dennett, as Delegated Officer, approved Mr Nathan Williams' appointment by email.236 [208] The written declaration recorded in the Selection Report is in the following terms:237 The Chair, Helen Burgess, advised that she knew the parents of Nathan Williams, but she was not familiar with him. There were no other actual or potential conflicts of interest relating to the applicants. [209] That declaration, and not the private conversation with Mr Dennett, is the relevant disclosure for Allegation 2. The Selection Report is the formal record of the recruitment, and the process draws its integrity from the participation of the whole panel. Even accepting that Mr Dennett was on full notice of the relationship, the other panel members were not.238 234 Section 89(1) of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 9 of Directive 03/24 (n 168); Clause 1.2 of the Code of Conduct (n 175); COI Procedure (n 184), 'Principles'. 235 Clauses 9.6(a) of Directive 03/24 (n 168); Clause 1.2 of the Code of Conduct (n 175); Appeal Notice (n 6), Section 2. 236 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026, Attachment 12 'Delegated officer approval' (Email correspondence from Marc Dennett to Office of the Executive Director – Compliance and Field Services (CC Helen Burgess) dated 1 July 2020), Attachment 15 'Excel spreadsheet of applicants'. 237 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026, 3. 238 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026. -- 47 of 80 -- 48 [210] On a plain reading, the declaration conveys acquaintance, not relationship. It states that Ms Burgess knew Nathan's parents personally, without disclosing that one of them was her partner of three years' standing. The distinction matters. [211] Mr Gibson's evidence is that he did not understand from the declaration that any personal relationship existed between Ms Burgess and Nathan Williams. He was not made aware of any relationship between Ms Burgess and Nathan William's father. Had it been disclosed, Mr Gilbert's account is that he would have suspended the process and would not have signed the Report.239 Mr Bailey's evidence is to the same effect. That is, had he known, he would have advised Ms Burgess that it was not appropriate for her to remain on the panel, he would have removed himself and would not have signed the Report.240 [212] Mr Dennett's statement of 16 July 2025 records that he advised Ms Burgess that the declaration needed to cover the nature of the conflict, namely a personal relationship with Nathan William’s father and that he considered what she had written sufficient, having regard to the makeup of the panel and her history as a victim of domestic violence.241 [213] During the investigation process, Mr Dennett clarified he had used the singular 'parent' in his advice. He acknowledged that the plural 'parents' appeared in the Selection Report but confirmed that he did not know whether Ms Burgess knew Nathan's mother.242 [214] The familiarity between Ms Burgess and Nathan Williams was greater than the declaration in the Selection Report conveyed. Ms Burgess accepted during the investigation process that Nathan was her partner's son, that she knew him before the recruitment and that she had previously assisted him with resumes and cover letters for other roles.243 [215] On the materials filed in the Commission, it appears that on 8 November 2019, Nathan Williams sent his current resume to Ms Burgess' personal email. Document properties record Ms Burgess as having created a resume for Mr Williams on 10 February 2019 and that on the same date she prepared and forwarded Mr Williams an employment letter.244 239 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 16 'Michael Gibson transcript', interview conducted 14 July 2025, 10-13. 240 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 17 'Benjamin Bailey transcript', interview conducted 15 July 2025, 10-14. 241 Investigation Report (n 1), 8-18, Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025, [17]-[19]. 242 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025, Attachment 9 'Marc Dennett transcript', interview conducted 18 July 2025. 243 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025. 244 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 8 'Nathan Williams transcript', interview conducted 16 July 2025; Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025, Attachment 13 'Communication between Ms Burgess and Nathan Willaims prior to the recruitment and selection process' (CCC Forensic Analysis of Email Communications), Attachment 14 'Nathan Williams resume and properties'. -- 48 of 80 -- 49 [216] Nathan Williams confirmed during the investigation process, that Ms Burgess had assisted him with his resume and that, at his interview for the OIR position, Ms Burgess told the panel only that she had met him before and 'definitely' did not inform them that he was the son of her partner.245 [217] Ms Burgess' primary argument is that because Mr Dennett was already aware of the relationship through their private conversations, no recommendation she made could have misled the relevant decision-maker. She contends that the written declaration must be considered in light of her prior oral disclosure and the advice she received. [244] [218] That submission is not accepted. The integrity of a recruitment process depends on the participation of the panel as a whole, not solely on the delegate’s knowledge. Here, the other panel members signed the Selection Report without understanding the true nature of the relationship. Nor do Ms Burgess' personal reasons for using guarded language, including her alleged history of domestic violence and her reluctance to disclose personal matters at work, overcome the inadequacy of the declaration when assessed against her obligations under cl 9.6(a) of Directive 03/24 and cl 1.2 of the Code of Conduct. [245] [219] It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to conclude that the written declaration did not satisfy the obligation and that the prior discussion with Mr Dennett alone did not remedy that deficiency. 245 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 8 'Nathan Williams transcript', interview conducted 16 July 2025, 13. -- 49 of 80 -- 50 Whether the conduct was properly characterised as misconduct [220] The next question is whether it was reasonably open to the decision-maker to characterise the substantiated conduct as misconduct under ss 91(1)(b) and 91(5)(a). The principles drawn from Nield246 set out under Allegation 1 apply with equal force for Allegation 2. The obligation engaged is honest disclosure by a panel chair in a recruitment process. Clause 9.6(a) of Directive 03/24 required a full declaration of conflicts by Ms Burgess.247 Clause 1.2 of the Code of Conduct calls for disclosure of any personal interest that could be seen as influencing duties.248 That obligation is all the greater where an employee chairs the panel, because the chair sets the standard of the process and is often responsible for preparation of the Selection Report. [221] The breach was substantial. The declaration described Ms Burgess as knowing Nathan William's parents personally. There are no materials before the Commission which indicate Ms Burgess knew Nathan's mother personally. Ms Burgess was in a long-term personal relationship with his father. [222] The practical result was that Ms Burgess understated the depth and nature of the conflict. Her declaration presented a different picture from the reality, with the consequence that the other panel members signed the Selection Report on a misunderstanding of the true position.249 [223] The context makes the conclusion clearer. The recruitment was for a Senior Inspector (Construction) position within the inspectorate Ms Burgess led. The successful applicant was the adult son of her long-term partner, a CFMEU delegate working in the very industry that OIR regulated.250 [224] Ms Burgess maintains that her conduct was not inherently dishonest because Mr Dennett, as the relevant delegate, was on full notice and because the wording was the product of her personal history. 246 Nield (n 227). 247 Clause 9.6 of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 248 Clause 1.2 of the Code of Conduct (n 175). 249 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026, Attachment 16 'Michael Gibson transcript', interview conducted 14 July 2025, 10-13, Attachment 17 'Benjamin Bailey transcript', interview conducted 15 July 2025, 10-14. 250 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 11 'Recruitment and Selection report QLD 333251/19 ' dated 16 July 2026, Attachment 16 'Michael Gibson transcript', interview conducted 14 July 2025, 10-13. -- 50 of 80 -- 51 [225] The label 'inherently dishonest' describes the practical effect of the declaration, which failed to convey the true position. In line with Nield, it is not necessary to demonstrate that Ms Burgess knew she was acting improperly.251 The personal reasons relied upon by Ms Burgess, which Ms Heelan acknowledged, might explain why she chose to downplay her relationships, but they do not displace the effect of the declaration or the assessment the legislation requires. [226] The standard of proof in Directive 05/23, takes account of the seriousness of an allegation and the gravity of its consequences. In the case of Ms Burgess, the finding is directed at the content of a written declaration where the text is not in dispute. Ms Heelan's task was to assess what that declaration conveyed when read against the reality. The standard was comfortably met.252 [227] It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to characterise the substantiated conduct as misconduct under ss 91(1)(b) and 91(5)(a) of the PS Act. [228] Allegation 2 is confirmed. 251 Nield (n 227), [75]. 252 Sections 91(1)(b), 91(5)(a) of the PS Act (n 10); [58]-[70], [75]; Gold Coast Hospital and Health Services (n 228), [36] (Merrell DP); Lam (n 228); Directive 05/23 (n 130), 'Definitions' Balance of probabilities; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 12-13. -- 51 of 80 -- 52 Allegation 3 - Ongoing relationship with Mr Nathan Williams Whether the recruitment disclosure discharged the continuing obligation on Mr Nathan Williams' commencement [229] The starting point for Allegation 3 is whether it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to conclude that the disclosure made by Ms Burgess during the recruitment process did not discharge the continuing obligation that arose once Mr Nathan Williams became an employee within Ms Burgess' team. The relevant framework is s 89(1) of the PS Act, cll 9.1, 9.2, 9.5 and 9.6 of Directive 03/24, and the 'Variation of interests' provision of the OIR COI Procedure.253 [230] Ms Heelan correctly distinguished between the conflict that arose in the discrete recruitment process (Allegation 2) and the conflict that arose continuously thereafter from any decision Ms Burgess might be called on to make in relation to Mr Nathan Williams. The first concerns an event and the second, a continuing situation. The duty in s 89 is engaged whenever an interest creates or may create a conflict with the discharge of an employee's duties and is not spent by an earlier disclosure directed to a discrete event. In any event, the disclosure made in the recruitment was the subject of a finding in Allegation 2, that it was not a full disclosure.254 [231] Ms Burgess argues that, because she made a disclosure during the recruitment, there was nothing improper in not making a further disclosure when Mr Nathan Williams began his employment.255 That argument is not accepted. The recruitment disclosure was incomplete. An incomplete disclosure cannot discharge a continuing obligation. [232] It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that the disclosure made during the recruitment did not discharge the continuing obligation, once Mr Nathan Williams became an employee of the OIR. 253 Section 89(1) of the PS Act (n 10); Clauses 9.1, 9.2, 9.5, 9.6 of Directive 03/24 (n 168); CCOI Procedure (n 184), 'Variation of interests'. 254 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 13-15. 255 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [12]. -- 52 of 80 -- 53 Whether the approval of leave, timesheets and work from home arrangements was a breach of s 89(1)(b) [233] The next question is whether it was reasonably open to find that the approvals of Mr Nathan Williams' leave, timesheets, and to a more limited extent work-from-home arrangements, were acts undertaken by Ms Burgess on a matter affected by an undeclared conflict, contrary to s 89(1)(b) of the PS Act and cl 9.6(b) of Directive 03/24. That is, where a conflict exists, the employee must not take action on the matter unless authorised.256 [234] It is not in contention that Ms Burgess approved Mr Nathan Williams' sick leave for 12 October 2022, with the approval made on 28 October 2022.257 [235] At that time, the relevant line manager, Mr Mutton, was himself on leave and Ms Burgess' account is that she was approving timesheets for several inspectors who reported to Mr Mutton. It seems the same is true of the attendance sheets approved between 17 September and 14 October 2022.258 Mr Mutton's unavailability did not, however, alter the actual conflict. [236] On the 'work from home' arrangements, the materials filed in the Commission establish that Mr Nathan Williams communicated with Ms Burgess directly about working from home.259 Ms Burgess' contention that Mr Houston had refused to perform parts of his role was not raised at her interview with the investigator and was otherwise unsupported.260 [237] Ms Burgess' primary contention is that the approvals were routine or mundane and made necessary by Mr Mutton's unplanned leave. She argues that working from home during the COVID-19 period did not require formal approval.261 256 Section 89(1)(b) of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 9.6(b) of Directive 03/24 (n 168). 257 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 23. 258 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 23. 259 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 24 'Emails identifying Ms Burgess delegating work allocation and administrative approvals for Nathan [Williams]'; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 13-15. 260 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025. 261 Appellant's Submissions (n 11), [13]; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 21-23. -- 53 of 80 -- 54 [238] That argument misunderstands the test under s 89(1)(b), which is engaged whenever a conflict exists. What is important here is that Ms Burgess exercised line-management decision-making power over a person to whom she was personally connected, through an undisclosed relationship. If the usual alternative decision-maker is unavailable, the conflicted employee must refer the matter to another available decision-maker. Ms Burgess could have forwarded the leave forms and attendance sheets submitted by Mr Nathan Williams to another manager for approval. [239] It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that the approvals of leave, timesheets and the work from home arrangements were acts taken on a matter affected by an undeclared conflict, contrary to s 89(1)(b) and cl 9.6(b) of Directive 03/24. Whether any contravention of s 89 was without reasonable excuse [240] The expression 'reasonable excuse' is not defined in the PS Act. On its ordinary meaning, it requires the employee to identify circumstances which, viewed objectively, would justify the conduct or render it reasonable, notwithstanding the contravention.262 [241] Ms Burgess' explanation is that she had previously disclosed the personal nature of her relationship with Nathan Williams' father and had not been advised to take any particular steps to manage any conflict. [242] Clauses 10.11, 10.12 and 10.13 of Directive 03/24 and the 'Variation of interests' provision in the OIR COI Procedure, impose a continuing obligation to reconsider disclosure as circumstances change.263 The absence of a specific direction from a manager to take active steps did not relieve Ms Burgess of that continuing obligation. [243] Following Mr Dennett's separation from the OIR on 28 January 2022, Ms Burgess reported successively to Mr Andrew Harris and Ms Stacey Ozolins in acting Executive Director, CFS roles. Relevantly, as Ms Burgess acknowledged during the investigation process, no disclosure was made on either occasion.264 [244] For the reasons above, it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that any contravention of s 89 was without reasonable excuse within s 91(1)(g)(i). [245] Allegation 3 is confirmed. 262 Section 91(1)(g)(i) of the PS Act (n 10). 263 Clauses 10.11, 10.12, 10.13 of Directive 03/24 (n 168); COI Procedure (n 184), 'Variation of interests', 7-8. 264 Investigation Report (n 1), 16, Attachment 6 'Statement of Marc Dennett' dated 16 July 2025, [9]-[14]; Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025. -- 54 of 80 -- 55 Allegation 6 - Association with Mr Kurt Pauls Whether the association went beyond a professional one [246] The first question is whether it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that the association between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls had crossed from a professional relationship into a friendship or personal association, giving rise to a conflict of interest requiring disclosure under s 89. [247] The relevant framework is s 89(1) of the PS Act, cl 9 of Directive 03/24 and the OIR COI Procedure. Clause 9.4 of Directive 03/24 requires a logical connection between the personal interest and a relevant official matter, and the framework captures actual, perceived and potential conflicts.265 [248] Text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett from August 2022 to June 2023 provide a greater insight into the nature of the relationship between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls, in a way that the call data on its own, does not. The messages to Mr Dennett refer to conversations Ms Burgess was having with Mr Pauls on her personal phone. They are conversational, and at times confiding, with Ms Burgess writing openly about what Mr Pauls had told her, his views on certain matters and how he had interacted with her.266 [249] By August 2022, the communications between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls had moved well beyond OIR's formal regulatory dealings with the CFMEU. Mr Pauls' views and attitudes had become a subject of interest. That these exchanges occurred on Ms Burgess' personal phone points to a pattern in which her dealings with Mr Pauls were routinely conducted through personal channels, rather than OIR's official systems. [250] Against that pattern, the call data reveals more than mere frequency of contact. Through forensic analysis of Ms Burgess' personal mobile records covering 31 May 2024 to 13 January 2025, Ms Heelan identified seventy-two telephone contacts in a little under eight months. Ten of those calls exceeded 20 minutes in duration, with some extending beyond 40 minutes. The volume and duration of the contact are not readily consistent with occasional professional communication. Further, the length of the longer calls does not sit easily with the description of a professional relationship confined to OIR business.267 265 Section 89(1) of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 9 of Directive 03/24 (n 168); Clause 1.2 of the Code of Conduct (n 175); COI Procedure (n 184), 'Step 1: Identify'. 266 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'; Show Cause Notice (n 32), 20-21. 267 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 28 'Excel spreadsheet of phone calls made to and from the personal mobile telephone of Ms Burgess and Mr Kurt Pauls; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 18-19. -- 55 of 80 -- 56 [251] Ms Burgess argues that the content of the calls is unknown, a proportion of the call data represents attempts, unanswered calls and calls to a message bank and that any conflict must be assessed from the perspective of a properly informed observer.268 [252] In my view, that argument does not displace Ms Heelan's conclusion. The position revealed by the calls that were connected is not displaced by those that were not. Even allowing for the unanswered calls, what remains is a substantial body of contact of considerable duration, on Ms Burgess' personal phone, supported by Ms Burgess' contemporaneous descriptions to Mr Dennett over a period of time about what she and Mr Pauls had been discussing. [253] In those circumstances, it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to conclude that the association between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls had crossed from a professional relationship into one giving rise to a conflict of interest, requiring disclosure under s 89 of the PS Act. Whether Ms Burgess' role change in February 2023 extinguished the disclosure obligation [254] The next issue is whether the role change in February 2023 extinguished Ms Burgess' disclosure obligation in respect of her ongoing association with Mr Pauls. The framework is s 89 of the PS Act and cl 9 of Directive 03/24, which captures perceived and potential conflicts, as well as actual conflicts.269 [255] Although Ms Burgess was temporarily moved out of the construction inspectorate in February 2023, she remained a senior officer within the OIR, as a Director of Specialist and Regulatory Services, with continuing access to information about the organisation's broader operations.270 [256] It seems to me that a reasonable observer, informed of Ms Burgess' seniority, of Mr Pauls' continuing role in the CFMEU, of the volume and length of the contact and of the nature of the communication, would understand the situation as one giving rise to a perceived conflict within the terms contemplated in Directive 03/24. The Decision's reference to reputational risk if the contact became public is relevant. Reputational risk and perceived conflict overlap where the conduct could be viewed as compromising independence and impartiality.271 [257] There is no reason on the evidence to treat the role change as having broken the chain of association. It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to find that Mr Burgess' role change did not extinguish the disclosure obligation. 268 Appellant's Reply Submissions (n 136), [7]-[8]. 269 Section 89 of the PS Act (n 10); Clause 9 of Directive 03/24 (n 168), see in particular Clause 9.2(a), (b) and (c). 270 Correspondence from OIR to the Industrial Registry dated 27 May 2026, providing requested information in respect of Ms Burgess' current role title and commencement date. 271 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'; Respondent's Submissions (n 131), [24]; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 40. -- 56 of 80 -- 57 Whether the civil standard was met [258] Directive 05/23 references the balance of probabilities, being the civil standard of proof.272 It follows that the next issue is whether the civil standard, having regard to the seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the consequences, was satisfied. Certainly, the consequence of a serious disciplinary finding against a senior officer calls for caution in drawing inferences.273 [259] In my view, the combination of the following are sufficient to satisfy the requisite standard of proof: (a) the volume and length of the calls; (b) the medium on which they took place; (c) the content of the contemporaneous text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett; (d) Ms Burgess' own characterisation of the topics as those of shared interest between people who had previously worked closely together; (e) Ms Burgess' role and seniority within OIR during the relevant period; and (f) Mr Pauls' continuing position with the CFMEU. [260] The previous directions to Ms Burgess in 2020 and 2022, and the earlier disciplinary history considered in Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations),274 form part of the context. [261] Ms Burgess had been told, more than once and through several channels, that her communications with stakeholders were to be conducted in a manner that could withstand scrutiny. The continuing pattern of frequent personal phone contact with a senior CFMEU official, without disclosure, sits uneasily with that background.275 [262] It was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to be satisfied to the requisite standard that Ms Burgess' association with Mr Pauls gave rise to at least a perceived, and arguably a potential, conflict of interest requiring disclosure under s 89 of the PS Act. [263] Allegation 6 is confirmed. 272 Directive 05/23 (n 130), 'Definitions' Balance of probabilities. 273 Briginshaw (n 127). 274 Burgess (n 36). 275 Burgess (n 36); Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025. -- 57 of 80 -- 58 Allegation 7 - Directions about use of personal mobile phone Whether the 2020 and 2022 communications operated as lawful and reasonable directions [264] The first issue to resolve is whether the 2020 correspondence from Mr Allen and the 2022 reiteration from Mr Harris operated as lawful and reasonable directions to Ms Burgess. [265] The relevant framework is s 91(1)(d) of the PS Act, which is relevant where an employee has, without reasonable excuse, contravened a direction given by a responsible person, together with Directive 05/23 in respect of the civil standard of proof.276 [266] The 15 May 2020 correspondence from Mr Allen uses the word 'expectation' but the substance, in my view, is mandatory. The correspondence provides that work-related communications with clients 'must, at all times', be facilitated through official telephone, email and work-based facilities.277 [267] His Honour, Vice President O'Connor in Burgess v State of Queensland (Office of Industrial Relations)278 found that Mr Harris's correspondence of 27 October 2022 proffered practical advice and was not disciplinary action. That finding, however, was directed at whether the 2022 communication was disciplinary in character. It did not bear on whether the 2020 correspondence operated as a lawful direction.279 [268] In its proper context, the purpose of the repeated direction was not convenience, but instead oversight. Communications on official channels can be retrieved, audited and produced, whereas communications on personal devices ordinarily cannot. The direction to Ms Burgess (a senior officer of an organisation involved in regulatory activities) that all work-related contact with stakeholders be conducted through official channels is, in substance, a direction that those dealings be capable of being checked.280 276 Section 91(1)(d) of the PS Act (n 10); Directive 05/23 (n 130), 'Definitions' Balance of probabilities. 277 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 29 'Outcome Advice Helen Burgess' dated 15 May 2020 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Craig Allen, DDG (former) OIR. 278 Burgess (n 36). 279 Burgess (n 36), [59]. 280 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 29 'Outcome Advice Helen Burgess' dated 15 May 2020 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Craig Allen, DDG (former) OIR ('2020 Direction'), Attachment 30 'Confidential Update' Email direction, dated 27 October 2022 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Andrew Harris, ED (former) OIR ('2022 reiteration'). -- 58 of 80 -- 59 [269] Ms Burgess argues that the correspondence of 15 May 2020 uses the language of expectation, rather than direction. That argument fails on the text within the correspondence. The mandatory wording ('must, at all times'), together with the fact that this was a formal outcome letter from a Deputy Director-General to a senior officer, points to a direction, rather than mere encouragement. [270] In her Show Cause Response, Ms Burgess details previous complaints that have been made about her to the CCC. In relation to Complaint #6, Ms Burgess stated that in outcome correspondence dated 9 January 2024 from the Deputy Director General, 'the DOG took the opportunity to remind me of the previous directions that I am not to use my private mobile telephone to conduct any OIR related business' (emphasis added).281 From her response, it is clear that Ms Burgess understood she had been given a direction not to use her private mobile telephone to conduct OIR related business and that direction had again been reinforced in January 2024. [271] In my view, it was open to treat the 2020 correspondence, reinforced in 2022, as a lawful and reasonable direction that work-related communications with clients, including the CFMEU, be conducted through official channels. Whether the calls and messages with Mr Pauls were work-related contact in contravention of the earlier directions given to Ms Burgess [272] The next question is whether the calls and text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls included work-related contact, in contravention of the directions. The framework is section 91(1)(d) of the PS Act and the civil standard of proof in Directive 05/23.282 [273] Ms Heelan reasoned that, on Ms Burgess' own description of the calls as concerning topics of shared interest between two people who used to work closely together, it was more likely than not that work-related construction matters were discussed on her personal mobile phone.283 [274] Ms Burgess maintains that from February 2023 she temporarily ceased to be the Director of CFS, and that CFS matters were no longer part of her role.284 281 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 7. 282 Section 91(1)(d) of the PS Act (n 10); Directive 05/23 (n 130), 'Definitions' Balance of probabilities. 283 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 33; Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6), 20; Show Cause Notice (n 32). 284 Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3). -- 59 of 80 -- 60 [275] Relevantly, the 2020 Direction and the 2022 communications were addressed to Ms Burgess as a senior officer of the OIR.285 They were not tied to the portfolio she held when they were issued. Furthermore, they governed all of her work-related communications with the OIR's clients. [276] Ms Burgess remained a senior officer throughout the relevant period. On her own submissions, she was temporarily transferred into the role of Director, Construction Strategy in early 2023.286 Ms Burgess' duty to comply with reasonable and lawful directions given by responsible persons of the OIR continued while she was in that role. The directions extended to work-related communications with clients generally. The CFMEU is a client of the OIR and Mr Pauls was a current officer of the CFMEU, during the relevant period. [277] Frequent telephone contact of substantial duration, conducted on Ms Burgess's personal phone, and concerning, on her own account, topics of shared professional interest arising out of joint work in the same regulated industry, falls naturally within the scope of communications the directions sought to bring within official channels.287 [278] Ms Burgess' text messages to Mr Dennett further support Ms Heelan's conclusion. They were Ms Burgess's own account, on her personal phone, of what she and Mr Pauls had been discussing. In her own words, they show that Mr Pauls was passing on information about matters within OIR's orbit. They also show that Ms Burgess was at least, on occasion, responding. On the materials before the Commission, I am satisfied the relationship with Mr Pauls, conducted on Ms Burgess' personal phone, extended to matters of OIR concern.288 285 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 29 'Outcome Advice Helen Burgess' dated 15 May 2020 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Craig Allen, DDG (former) OIR ('2020 Direction'), Attachment 30 'Confidential Update' Email direction, dated 27 October 2022 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Andrew Harris, ED (former) OIR ('2022 reiteration'). 286 Appellant's Further Submissions (n 3). 287 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025, Attachment 29 'Outcome Advice Helen Burgess' dated 15 May 2020 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Craig Allen, DDG (former) OIR, Attachment 30 'Confidential Update' Email direction, dated 27 October 2022 issued to Ms Burgess from Mr Andrew Harris, ED (former) OIR. 288 Investigation Report (n 1), Attachment 10 'Helen Burgess transcript', interview conducted 9 July 2025; Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'. -- 60 of 80 -- 61 [279] Ms Burgess' second contention is that, because she retained a separate work phone, the calls appearing on her personal phone must have been personal in nature. The contention is not supported by the materials. The text messages with Mr Dennett indicate that conversations touching on work related matters affecting the sector were taking place between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls on her personal phone, in a pattern consistent with the kind of blurring of personal and work-related communication the directions had been put in place to prevent. [280] The directions arose in a context where Ms Burgess' communications with industry stakeholders had been the subject of earlier management concern. The role change made it just as important, not less, to keep the interaction visible.289 [281] Ms Burgess' third contention is that there is an internal tension in the Respondent's case, because the same telephone evidence is relied on under Allegation 6 to establish a personal association beyond a professional one, and under Allegation 7 to establish work-related contact. She argues that the two characterisations cannot coexist.290 [282] It seems to me that the two characterisations are not mutually exclusive. A friendly personal contact can encompass work-related subject matter, and a professional contact can soften into personal friendship, over time. The feature that makes the contact problematic from a conflict of interest perspective, (i.e. the carrying of work-related subject matter into a personal-phone exchange between people whose connection is no longer purely professional) is also what makes it problematic when the earlier Directions are considered. [283] The text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett support Ms Heelan's conclusions about the personal character of the association under Allegation 6 and the work-related content of the contact under Allegation 7.291 [284] I am not persuaded the findings are inconsistent.292 [285] Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the consequences, the conclusion that Ms Burgess' communications with Mr Pauls included work-related contact on her personal phone and therefore contravened the earlier directions, was open. For the reasons set out earlier, it was reasonably open to Ms Heelan to conclude that the calls and text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Pauls included work-related contact in contravention of the directions. 289 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 40. 290 Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 39-40. 291 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 39-40. 292 Show Cause Notice (n 32), Attachment 9 'Copies and text messages between you [Helen Burgess] and Marc Dennett, provided by the CCC'; Response to Show Cause Notice (n 49), 39-40. -- 61 of 80 -- 62 [286] Allegation 7 is confirmed. Conclusion [287] The appeal concerns the five substantiated findings in Ms Heelan's Decision of 22 December 2025, Allegations 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. The conclusions in Allegations 4 and 5 were not appealed.293 [288] For the reasons given, the finding that Ms Burgess failed to properly disclose and manage a conflict of interest arising from her personal relationship with Mr Paul Williams (Allegation 1), and the related finding of misconduct under s 91(1)(b) and s 91(5)(a), were open to Ms Heelan and were fair and reasonable. [289] The conclusion that Ms Burgess failed to properly declare and manage a conflict of interest in the recruitment of Mr Nathan Williams (Allegation 2), and the related finding of misconduct under s 91(1)(b) and s 91(5)(a), were open to Ms Heelan and were fair and reasonable. [290] The determination that Ms Burgess failed to declare and manage a conflict of interest arising from her relationship with Mr Nathan Williams (Allegation 3), and the related finding that she contravened s 89 of the PS Act without reasonable excuse under s 91(1)(g)(i), were open to Ms Heelan and were fair and reasonable. [291] The conclusion that Ms Burgess failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from her association with Mr Kurt Pauls (Allegation 6), and the related finding under s 91(1)(g), were open to Ms Heelan, and were fair and reasonable. [292] The finding that Ms Burgess failed to comply with reasonable and lawful directions about the use of her personal mobile phone for work-related contact with OIR clients (Allegation 7), and the related finding under s 91(1)(d), were within the range of reasonable conclusions open to Ms Heelan and were fair and reasonable. [293] The findings on Allegations 6 and 7 rest, in part, on inference. The inferences are nonetheless supported by evidence in the contemporaneous text messages between Ms Burgess and Mr Dennett, through Ms Burgess' own description of the topics and content of the calls, by the volume and length of personal phone contact with a current CFMEU official and by Ms Burgess' continuing senior position within the OIR throughout the relevant period. [294] For these reasons, the Decision of 22 December 2025 was fair and reasonable within s 562B(3) of the IR Act. 293 Disciplinary Findings Decision (n 6). -- 62 of 80 -- 63 Order [295] I make the following order. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 63 of 80 -- 64 Appendix 1 ALLEGATION 1 (Investigation Report Allegation 1) You failed to properly disclose and appropriately manage a conflict of interest arising from your personal relationship with Paul Williams. The particulars of Allegation 1 are as follows: 2. You first commenced employment with Office of Industrial Relations (OIR) in July 2007. You are currently employed in the OIR as a Director, Specialist Health and Safety Services (SSHS). You have performed this role since early 2023. 3. Before January 2023, you were employed in the role of Director, Construction - Compliance and Field Services (CFS). CFS is part of Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) 4. As the Director, CFS, you provided high level advice to the Executive Director, Directors and Managers within CFS on emerging issues and trends in the construction industry to ensure best practice outcomes. 5. As Director, CFS, your key responsibilities also included: (a) Leading and managing a diverse team of construction inspectors and managers ensuring a high level of service delivery which is consistent and responsive. (b) Liaising with management, stakeholders and technical experts, at a State-wide level, to establish priorities, develop strategic responses, coordinate implementation and build organisational capability and responsiveness. (c) Developing strategic partnerships and working closely with key internal and external stakeholders including industry and organisational representatives, unions, principal contractors, sub-contractors, construction workers, and regional WHSQ management across the State, to ensure conflicting and competing agendas and other significant issues, which may arise on major construction projects and other high risk operations, are addressed in a manner that facilitates agreement and acceptance of mutually beneficial solutions. (d) Monitoring and reporting on strategy, programs and initiatives within the scope of the role and identify and address risks and issues impacting on achievement of objectives. 6. The key responsibilities of a construction inspector include: (a) use the powers appointed to inspectors according to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Electrical Safety Act 2002 to assist the government in meeting the objectives of these Acts. (b) conduct investigations of work incidents, injuries and complaints, and prepare investigations reports. 7. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining Employees Union (CFMEU) is the largest union in the construction sector. It is an external stakeholder of the OIR. The responsibilities of a construction inspector require them to visit construction sites at which CFMEU delegates may be present. -- 64 of 80 -- 65 8. It is a fundamental obligation of public sector employees that they declare possible perceived conflicts of interest between their personal relationships and associations and their duties as public sector employees. 9. Employees are not required to only disclose actual conflicts of interest. Employees must also disclose perceived or potential conflicts of interest. 10. A perceived conflict of interest occurs where it may be perceived by others that an OIRs employee’s personal interests could improperly influence the performance of their public duties, whether or not this is in fact the case. A potential conflict of interest arises when an OIR employee has personal interests that could interfere with their official duties in the future. 11. The perception that a conflict of interest has influence over an outcome can undermine public confidence in the integrity of the OIR, the individual, and the Queensland Government as a whole. Unresolved or poorly managed conflicts of interest can lead to corruption or abuse of public office, or a perception by another that these exist. 12. Personal interests which have, or may be perceived to have, the potential for a conflict of interest and may include: (a) a family or private business, partnership and directorships in a company; (b) personal relationships (including the interests of partners and/or dependents) with those where we may conduct official OIR duties; (c) personal relationships at work where an influence may be actual or perceived; (d) personal or social relationship with someone who is a client or supplier of a service to OIR or works for a supplier of a service to the OIR. 13. The key test is whether an OIR employee may be influenced, or appear to be influenced, by a personal interest in carrying out their public duty. 14. OIR’s Conflict of interest information sheet states that the community has a right to expect all public officials to perform their duties in a fair and unbiased way. Conflicts of interest can arise from personal relationships where an employee has a close family or personal relationship either at work or in organisations that deal with OIR. 15. An employee is required to discuss or declare any potential conflict of interest to their supervisor at the earliest opportunity. Additionally, employees must complete a conflict of interest declaration form which is sent to the Deputy Director-General for endorsement. -- 65 of 80 -- 66 16. It is never too late to declare a conflict of interest. On 2 August 2023, Stacey Ozolins, Executive Director, WHS Compliance and Field Services emailed all CFS staff to remind them about the importance of managing and declaring conflicts of interest. In her email, Ms Ozolins advised staff they needed to consider any relationships of a personal nature that they may have with key stakeholders they interact with in their role or who may interact with staff members in their role and personal relationships in the workplace that extend beyond colleagues. 17. You have been in a personal relationship with Paul Williams since late 2017. Mr Williams works in the construction industry. He has previously been a CFMEU delegate. A delegate is elected by an elected workplace representative who acts at the first point of contact for union members. He has also been the Health and Safety Representative (HSR) at work sites. 18. Attachment 3 to the Investigation Report is a copy of text messages exchanged between you and Mr Williams. Attachment 3 is over 1,200 pages and captures messages from November 2021 to January 2025. You and Mr Williams speak about domestic matters, including pets, household tasks, arrangements to be picked up from events, inspecting properties, including with a view to purchase them. 19. At times, you also discuss construction industry related matters. For example: (a) At 1.04pm on 16 February 2022, you text Mr Williams “There is a prohibition on the scaffold. Were people working on it?”, to which he replied at 1.07pm “not today”. (b) At 8.47am on 13 December 2022, you text Mr Williams “there was still a protest this morning at William street” “Rk said it was uses” “yous”. (c) At 9.35am on 9 January 2023, you text Mr Williams “If you’re at palm Beach you need to leave because nathan is being sent there”. ‘nathan’ is a reference to Nathan Williams, Mr Williams’ son. (d) At 1.09pm on 24 May 2023 you text Mr Williams “Has something happened at that stupid picket”. At 1.12pm Mr Williams replied “20 pigs turned up not sure if anyone got arrested yet”. (e) At 9.08pm on 5 July 2023, Mr Williams asked you “Does a builder have to have a copy of all high risk or t/c licences ? I’m in a meeting and it’s getting discussed that apparently the dept says you have too ?”. You responded at 9.32am “Yes you do”. (f) At 9.05pm on 3 August 2023, Mr Williams asked you “Do you have an insider at estimates to update ya ?”. You replied at 9.15am, “It’s streamed live for the whole world to watch”. (g) At 9.30am on 17 August 2023, you text Mr Williams “Have the shut Hutchinson sites in the city today” and also said “Ok John was going in but I’ll tell him not to”. (h) At 3.49pm on 7 February 2024, Mr Williams text you “Just before I went in I got a call 4 of the new wankers are smashing HB tweed & shutting jobs”. You and Mr Williams exchange some texts before you write at 3.48pm “You were right about they’d do. HB need to push back. Everyone else does”. At 3.40pm on 7 February 2024 you text Mr Williams “Civil seems to be the new black so it’s not like they will out all their resources on the coast”. -- 66 of 80 -- 67 (i) On 13 March 2024 you exchange messages with Mr Williams about him being present at a work site. In response to Mr Williams telling you there were eight people there, at 10.24pm you wrote “Why’d you have to go then!”. At 10.42 and 10.47pm, you wrote “Its bull shit” and “It is. Jades a fuck stick”. ‘Jade’ is likely a reference to Jade Ingham, former assistant secretary of the CFMEU. (j) At 9.26am on 11 July 2024 you text Mr Williams asking if he knew any small construction site that was ‘non union’ so a team from OIR could film a segment. You and Mr Williams exchange a series of messages. At 10.13am you wrote “Are there any non union that aren’t grubs”. ‘Grub’ is commonly understood in Australian slang to be a derogatory term. (k) At 3.13pm on 24 August 2024 you text Mr Williams and asked “Do you remember why marsh height safety got this notice at elysian?”. In response to Mr Williams texting at 3.48pm “They probably didn’t an exclusion zone or swms’s, it was a grub job”. You also wrote at 3.45pm “From what I can tell they were going to use an incomplete rope access system. They should take safety out of their name”. (l) At 12.34pm on 17 September 2024, Mr Williams text you “Who’s the old blf inspector ?”. You responded with “John barber” and asked “Why”. Mr Williams responded “Kongy said he’s the one pushing all the mental health claims”. At 1.11pm you wrote “Yeah he would be. No doubt all saying the union organises caused the issues. I didn’t realise the inspectors where putting in claims” and “Are they doing it based on the union organiser interactions?” 20. Your personal relationship with Mr Williams created, at the very least, a potential conflict of interest between your private interests and your official duties for OIR, given Mr Williams’ position as a HSR and CFMEU delegate. You discussed matters with Mr Williams related to the construction industry, including matters that were not public knowledge. In light of your personal relationship with Mr Williams, there is a risk that your impartiality could be compromised, or could reasonably be perceived to be compromised, when performing your duties for OIR. The perception of bias could undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of OIR. 21. It is likely you were aware there was an actual conflict of interest arising between your personal relationship with Mr Williams and your employment with OIR, noting your text message with him on 9 January 2023 about Nathan Williams attending a construction site which Mr Williams may have been at. 22. You did not complete a conflict of interest form declaring your personal relationship with Mr Williams at any point, including after you received Ms Ozolins’ email in August 2024. 23. You failed to appropriately declare and manage your conflict of interest which arose as a result of your personal relationship with Mr Paul Williams in accordance with the requirements imposed upon you to do so. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 1 and in particular, pages 8 to 18 and the Attachments 2 to 10 of the Investigation report and the Attachments 2 to 8 of this notice. -- 67 of 80 -- 68 Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 1, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(g) of the Act, in that you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of this Act, namely: Public Sector Act 2022 89 Conflicts of interest—public sector employee (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee’s duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee’s chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee’s knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee’s chief executive. (2) A public sector employee’s chief executive may direct the employee to resolve a conflict or possible conflict between an interest of the employee and the employee’s duties. (3) A reference to a public sector employee in this section does not include a reference to a chief executive of a public sector entity. ALLEGATION 2 (Investigation Report Allegation 2) You failed to properly declare and appropriately manage a conflict of interest in a recruitment activity in which Nathan Williams was the successful applicant. The particulars of Allegation 2 are as follows: 1. I refer to particulars 2 to 5 and 8 to 17 of Allegation 1. 2. Nathan Williams is Paul Williams’ son. 3. In June 2020, a recruitment and selection process was conducted by OIR for a Senior Inspector (Construction) position on the Gold Coast. The job reference number for the selection report was QLD 333251/19. 4. You were the chair of the panel. 5. Nathan Williams applied for the position of Senior Inspector Construction. At the time Nathan Williams applied for the position, you were in a personal relationship with Mr Williams. You had been in a personal relationship with Mr Williams for at least two years. -- 68 of 80 -- 69 6. You knew Nathan Williams in a personal capacity as he was Mr Williams’ son. You had previously assisted Nathan Williams in applying for a position with a private sector company by reviewing his resume. 7. Nathan Williams being Mr Williams’, created an actual conflict of interest in relation to your involvement in the recruitment and selection process. 8. Nathan Williams was short-listed for interview with two other applicants. Nathan Williams was the successful candidate and commenced employment with OIR on 3 July 2020. 9. In the Selection Report, it was recorded: The Chair, Helen Burgess, advised that she knew the parents of Nathan Williams personally, but she was not familiar with him. There were no other actual or potential conflicts of interest relating to the applicants. 10. This was not an accurate description of your relationship with Nathan Williams’ father or the conflict of interest arising from that relationship. You did not know Nathan Williams’ parents: you were in a personal relationship with Mr Williams. Further, you were ‘familiar’ with Nathan Williams to the extent you had previously reviewed his resume and met him through Mr Williams. 11. You failed to inform the other panel members that you were in a personal relationship with Nathan Williams’ father. Because you failed to accurately declare the conflict of interest, the conflict of interest was not able to be properly managed. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 2 and in particular, pages 19 to 28 and the Attachments 10 to 14 to the Investigation Report. Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 2, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(g) of the Act, in that you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of this Act, namely: Public Sector Act 2022 89 Conflicts of interest—public sector employee (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee’s duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee’s chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee’s knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee’s chief executive. -- 69 of 80 -- 70 (2) A public sector employee’s chief executive may direct the employee to resolve a conflict or possible conflict between an interest of the employee and the employee’s duties. (3) A reference to a public sector employee in this section does not include a reference to a chief executive of a public sector entity. ALLEGATION 3 (Investigation Report Allegation 4) You failed to declare and appropriately manage a conflict of interest arising from your personal relationship with Nathan Williams. The particulars of Allegation 3 are as follows: 1. I refer to particulars 2 and 3 and 8 to 17 of Allegation 1, and paragraphs 2 and 8 of Allegation 2. 2. As a Senior Inspector (Construction), Nathan Williams was in your direct line management. Nathan Williams reported to Mark Houston, Operations Manager. Mr Houston reported to you. 3. On at least three occasions, you directly approved for Nathan Williams to work from home without consulting or informing Mr Houston. You approved Nathan Williams to work from home on: Friday 17 July 2020, Friday 24 July 2020 and Friday 7 August 2020. 4. You approved sick leave applications from Nathan Williams for sick leave taken by him on 12 October 2022 and 28 October 2022. 5. You also approved Nathan Williams’ attendance sheets for the following weeks: (a) 17 September to 23 September 2022 (b) 24 September to 30 September 2022 (c) 1 October to 7 October 2022 (d) 8 October to 14 October 2022 6. An actual conflict of interest arose from Nathan Williams being in your line management. The conflict of interest arose from you being in a personal relationship with Mr Williams. A reasonable person might perceive that you might display favouritism towards Nathan Williams as he was the son of Mr Williams. You did not declare any conflict of interest arising from Nathan Williams being in your line management after he commenced employment with OIR as you were required to do so. 7. The conflict of interest meant you should not be involved in approving any employment matters relating to Nathan Williams. By approving Nathan Williams to work from home, approving his sick leave applications and attendance sheets, you failed to appropriately manage the conflict of interest and resolve it in the public interest. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 3 and in particular, pages 29 to 66 and Attachments 8, 10, 23 and 44 of the Investigation Report. -- 70 of 80 -- 71 Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 3, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(g) of the Act, in that you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of this Act, namely: Public Sector Act 2022 89 Conflicts of interest—public sector employee (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee’s duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee’s chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee’s knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee’s chief executive. (2) A public sector employee’s chief executive may direct the employee to resolve a conflict or possible conflict between an interest of the employee and the employee’s duties. (3) A reference to a public sector employee in this section does not include a reference to a chief executive of a public sector entity. ALLEGATION 4 (Investigation Report Allegation 3) You engaged in inappropriate communications with Marc Dennett, a former employee of OIR, including by informing him of confidential information, and discussing workplace matters with him. The particulars of Allegation 4 are as follows: 1. I refer to particulars 2 and 3 of Allegation 1. 2. Marc Dennett was employed by OIR as the Executive Director, Compliance and Field Services from 12 December 2011 to 28 January 2022. As Executive Director, Mr Dennett was your manager. Mr Dennett ceased being your manager when he left employment with OIR. 3. Attachment 9 to this notice is an extract of text messages between yourself and Mr Dennett from 2 December 2021 to 17 January 2025. Attachment 9 is over 1,500 pages. You exchanged the following messages with Mr Dennett after 28 January 2022: (a) At 8.00am on 10 February 2022, you wrote: RK had gone off about the secondary back up system being removed in the precast code. I warned harris the other week but he was a blank wall about it. Now harris is frantically trying to talk to rk and he won’t take his calls. I know this because rk told me. Harris hasn’t even spoken to me about it. So dumb. He should have asked me all about it so he understood and then had me talk to rk. But no. -- 71 of 80 -- 72 (b) On 23 February 2022, you informed Mr Dennett by text about a WorkCover claim made by Louis, an employee. Given his previous employment, Mr Dennett would be able to identify Louis by his first name only. You discussed with Mr Dennett how to respond to the claim. (c) On 3 March 2022, Mr Dennett text you: Forgot to mention can you send a construction inspector to this job next week don’t send tomorrow. Anonymous tip that it’s a shit tip. Needs a thorough general inspection. Someone like Wayne would have a field day. At 3.30pm on 4 March 2022, you responded “ok”. (d) On 24 March 2022, you sent a text to Mr Dennett which contained a summary of a confidential meeting you attended with Mr Harris and other employee, who you only identified by their surname ‘Collis’. (e) On 30 May 2022 you text Mr Dennett informing him about an employee’s reasons for resigning, after writing “he doesn’t want anyone to know and I promised him I wouldn’t tell anyone”. You refer to the employee as ‘Shrek’. This is a name commonly used by you and Mr Dennett in text messages. (f) On 5 July 2022 you text Mr Dennett telling him “The act review has been put on hold. Rk told me today”. This was in reference to a review of the WHS Act. You also told Mr Dennett that you had told Mr Kupsch to ask for the terms of refence. (g) On 22 July 2022, you text Mr Dennett: And an anonymous phone call to butterfly said they are referring me to the ccc for corruption. In response to this Mr Dennett text you: Say no tell Ravbar. (h) On 23 July 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Yeah I called rk this morning and He exploded. You continue to inform Mr Dennett about your discussion with Mr Kupsch from pages 383 to 391. (i) On 2 December 2022, you text Mr Dennett what you knew about applicants for a position. (j) On 30 May 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Haha apparently the budget has been slashed. We are losing 27 positions. I’m not allowed to tell anyone because not all the executive know… (k) On 15 June 2023, you text Mr Dennett: I’m back in the Ccc. So is shrek. (l) On 14 October 2024 you text Mr Dennett: Not renewed. All of us in an emergency meeting now. She called the meeting on Friday and Don’t say anything yet. 4. From the text messages you exchanged with Mr Dennett, it is apparent you also forwarded him OIR messages, or sent him photographs of emails, that are not captured below. 5. On 3 June 2024, you were informed by Sarina Wise, Executive Director, WHS Compliance and Field Services, that a brief establishing a new Industrial Standards and Support Unit in OIR had been approved. As part of these changes, you became the Director, Industry Standards & Support Unit from 1 July 2024. 6. In her email of 3 June 2024, Ms Wise specifically asked you that the information remains confidential as OIR worked through the consultation plan and announcement. -- 72 of 80 -- 73 7. At 8.00am on 4 June 2024, you forwarded Ms Wise’s email from your OIR email address to your personal email address, with its attachment. At 8.01am on 4 June 2024, you forwarded Ms Wise’s email from your personal email address to Mr Dennett. The information in Ms Wise’s email was confidential. You did not have authority to forward the email to Mr Dennett. 8. On 6 June 2024, I sent an email to a number of people within OIR advising them about the proposed Industry Standards and Support unit, and that consultation with impacted staff would commence at the end of the week. 9. At 8.48pm on 6 June 2024, you forwarded my email from your OIR email address to your personal email address. At 8.52pm on 6 June 2024, you forwarded my email from your personal email address to Mr Dennett. As Mr Dennett was not an OIR staff member, he was not impacted by the proposed changes. You did not have authority to forward it to Mr Dennett. 10. At 9.03pm on 6 June 2024, you forwarded an email chain between yourself and Ms Wise to Mr Dennett. In the email chain with Ms Wise, you discussed the upcoming changes within OIR. The information in the email chain was confidential. You did not have authority to disclose the information to Mr Dennett. 11. Over an extended period of time, after Mr Dennett was no longer an employee of OIR, you shared confidential information with him, without authority. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 4 and in particular, pages 29 to 33 and Attachments 17, 19, 20 and 21 of the Investigation Report, and Attachment 9 to this notice. Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 4, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(h) of the Act, in that you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a standard of conduct in a way that is sufficiently serious to warrant disciplinary action, with the standard of conduct being the Code. Specifically: i. Clause 4.4 of the Code which provides as follows: 4.4 Ensure appropriate use and disclosure of official information The public has a right to know the information that is created and used by the government on their behalf. This right is balanced by necessary protections for certain information, including personal information. Information privacy legislation protects against the misuse of personal information and we have an obligation to ensure the lawful collection and handling of personal information. -- 73 of 80 -- 74 In addition, we will : a. treat official information with care and use it only for the purpose for which it was collected or authorised b. store official information securely, and limit access to those persons requiring it for legitimate purposes, and c. not use confidential or privileged information to further personal interests. ALLEGATION 5 (Investigation Report Allegation 5) You failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from your friendship or personal association with Royce Kupsch, a CFMEU official. The particulars of Allegation 5 are as follows: 2. I refer to particulars 2 to 4 and 7 to 14 of Allegation 1. 3. Royce Kupsch is a former president and work health and safety co-ordinator of the CFMEU. You told the investigator that Mr Kupsch was the main contact person for the CFMEU. 4. Given the interactions between the CFMEU and OIR, particularly CFS, any relationships between OIR employees and CFMEU officials must be appropriate and not allow for any adverse effect on public confidence and more importantly the confidence of OIR's stakeholders in OIR conducting operations in a transparent manner in accordance with due process. 5. You have previously been the subject of a disciplinary process in relation to your conduct in communicating with CFMEU officials on your personal mobile phone. 6. Your personal mobile phone number is [REDACTED]. Your work mobile phone number is [REDACTED]. Mr Kupsch’s phone number is [REDACTED]. 7. You exchanged text messages with Mr Kupsch from your personal mobile phone, including: (a) At 6.09pm on 19 July 2024, Mr Kupsch text you: A bit boo whoo'y with a cold but ok ...John was so upset loosing you ...such a lovely fellow ...Ravbar and Wally made up on the day ..Wally was excellent..he spoke about the attack on the Cfmeus and just smoked it ..fuck he was good ...it was a ripper day ..Phil loves you to death because of your professionalism...I told him you were Uber crook ...so many old faces I must have shook 20 or so hands ..Mackay was there the elf looking mofo haaaaaa.....you were missed. (b) At 6.25pm on 19 July 2024, you responded to Mr Kupsch: McKay of course he went to training. Glad I didn't see him. But I thought the same, I was looking forward to seeing a few people from ages ago. Would have been good. -- 74 of 80 -- 75 (c) At 5.47pm on 29 September 2024, Mr Kupsch text you: ...Kurt's nose is way out of joint as he thinks being the senior person the other three lads should come and run things past him first... in his mind he thinks he should be in charge ... � � � � � � � � � �...Matt Parfitt is now the city organiser who only meets bosses and never a workers ...he's a first class dud ..he mates with Hoff so he got the gig ...Hoff is lost I reckon ..he sounds down ...I think builders are not falling at his feet when he walk on ..so he is staying away ...Blake and Dylan are going well ....delegates are treading water ...the place is missing a leader ...sooner jades back the better ...Jacquie can't get a job anywhere and I hear the office staff have but a bulling complaint in on her ....lots more to tell but that's a in person conversation ...how is your world going ... (d) On 15 December 2024, Mr Kupsch asked you “Helen, have you head of any changes to workers comp…” to which you responded “No but I can ask tomorrow”. 8. Some of the text messages you exchanged with Mr Kupsch were about CFMEU officials. 9. It also appears you regularly spoke with Mr Kupsch over the phone. In this regard, I refer you to: (a) At 8.00am on 10 February 2022, you text Mr Dennett: RK had gone off about the secondary back up system being removed in the precast code. I warned harris the other week but he was a blank wall about it. Now harris is frantically trying to talk to rk and he won’t take his calls. I know this because rk told me. Harris hasn’t even spoken to me about it. So dumb. He should have asked me all about it so he understood and then had me talk to rk. But no. (b) At 8.02am on 10 February 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Rk is meeting with thorning this morning because he's going to give rk advice on how to make the minister listen when they try to brush them on things. He's going to tell me what he says. (c) On 5 July 2022 you text Mr Dennett telling him “The act review has been put on hold. Rk told me today”. (d) On 23 July 2022 you text Mr Dennett: Yeah I called rk this morning. This was in response to Mr Dennett saying to you “say union advice and union representation and bring cfmeu in”. (e) At 9.36pm on 23 July 2022, you text Mr Dennett: I told rk all that I spoke to him for over an hour. You relay the contents of your discussion with Mr Kupsch to Mr Dennett. (f) At 7.10pm on 13 September 2022 you text Mr Dennett: RK was sent the board papers and it has the hsr plan in it. He called and said is this the thing I think is shit. I said yes and explained why. He wrote to the rest of the board and told them its high level rhetoric and meaningless and shows they don't take this seriously and how could it have taken two years. Some of them have already replied and the agree with him and are going to reject it (g) At 5.54pm on 3 February 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Rk called me today. At 6.23pm on 3 February 2023, you text Mr Dennett: …Talked about a few shitty things with the union. Asked what was going on ar work. Got angry and said they should be doing more. He seems ok. (h) At 6.19pm on 23 August 2024, you text Mr Dennett: I spoketo RK yesterday. He told me he’d spoke #2 a few times recently and he was constantly up and down and a bit of a mess. They never thought it would happen. (i) At 6.16pm on 6 September 2024, you text Mr Dennett: I spoke to RK. For an hour and a half. I listened. -- 75 of 80 -- 76 10. The text messages with Mr Dennett indicate you spoke with Mr Kupsch on a regular basis. The regularity of the text messages and their content and tone suggest you had a personal friendship with Mr Kupsch that went beyond a mere professional association. 11. Your personal friendship with Mr Kupsch created, at the very least, a potential or perceived conflict of interest with your duties for OIR given his position as a CFMEU official. A reasonable person could perceive that you might display favouritism towards Mr Kupsch and/or the CFMEU due to your friendship. This perception of bias could undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of OIR. 12. You did not declare any conflict of interest arising from your personal friendship with Mr Kupsch in accordance with the requirements imposed upon you to do so. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 5 and in particular, pages 39 to 45 and Attachments 10, 25, 26, and 27 of the Investigation Report, and Attachment 9 to this notice. Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 5, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(g) of the Act, in that you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of this Act, namely: Public Sector Act 2022 89 Conflicts of interest—public sector employee (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee’s duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee’s chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee’s knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee’s chief executive. (2) A public sector employee’s chief executive may direct the employee to resolve a conflict or possible conflict between an interest of the employee and the employee’s duties. (3) A reference to a public sector employee in this section does not include a reference to a chief executive of a public sector entity. -- 76 of 80 -- 77 ALLEGATION 6 (Investigation Report Allegation 7) You failed to disclose a conflict of interest arising from your friendship or personal association with Kurt Pauls, a CFMEU official. The particulars of Allegation 6 are as follows: 2. I refer to particulars 2 to 4 and 7 to 14 of Allegation 1, and particulars 4 and 5 of Allegation 5. 3. Kurt Pauls is the former QLD/NT work health and safety coordinator of the CFMEU. 4. Your personal mobile phone number is [REDACTED]. Your work mobile phone number is [REDACTED]. Mr Pauls’ phone number is [REDACTED]. 5. The CCC extracted records from your personal phone of your phone calls with Mr Pauls between 31 May 2024 and 13 January 2025. Over that period, you called Mr Pauls and he called you on your personal phone. At times, you had lengthy conversations with Mr Pauls, including: (a) 31 May 2024, for 40 minutes; (b) 7 June 2024, for 20 minutes; (c) 10 June 2024, for 29 minutes; (d) 13 June 2024, for 7 minutes and 20 minutes (two calls); (e) 18 June 2024, for 36 minutes; (f) 2 July 2024, for 6 minutes and 20 minutes (two calls); (g) 3 July 2024, for 12 minutes; (h) 9 July 2024, for 13 minutes; (i) 11 July 2024, for 15 minutes and 8 minutes (two calls); (j) 17 July 2024, for 8 minutes (there were also shorter calls on this day); (k) 23 July 2024, for 7 minutes; (l) 2 September 2024, for 24 minutes; (m) 12 September 2024, for 27 minutes; (n) 23 September 2024, for 17 minutes; (o) 2 October 2024, for 43 minutes; (p) 15 October 2024, for 32 minutes; (q) 29 October 2024, for 18 minutes; (r) 30 October 2024, for 6 minutes and 9 minutes (two calls); (s) 31 October 2024, for 13 minutes; (t) 4 November 2024, for 13 minutes and 16 minutes (two calls); (u) 5 November 2024, for 12 minutes; (v) 6 November 2024, for 16 minutes; (w) 11 November 2024, for 29 minutes; (x) 14 November 2024, for 22 minutes; (y) 25 November 2024, for 1 hour 2 minutes; (z) 2 December 2024, for 11 minutes; -- 77 of 80 -- 78 (aa) 13 January 2025, for 3 minutes and 15 minutes (two calls). 6. It also appears you regularly spoke with Mr Pauls over a longer period than captured in the data extracted by the CCC. In this regard, I refer you to: (a) At 9.32pm on 12 August 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt thinks we need to wait and see he’s not buying it. (b) At 8.12pm on 13 August 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt told me rk talked over the top of him in the meeting. He said MR went harder than he thought he would at her. He said he's not getting excited until he sees her do something. I told him she's doing nothing for me and likely won't for them either. He said if she doesn't come through they are going to go nuts. It sounds like rk was blowing his own trumpet and was trying to show off which is why he would have talked over kurt (c) At 7.57pm on 25 October 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt called me and said find out the job he was on on this date and if we have footage we’ll give it to you. (d) At 7.18pm on 27 October 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Ravbar told kurt to find out if I’m a dog. In the same text exchange you also say: Kurt defended me. Kurt’s calling him back now. He wants me to go and see him. I just got off the phone from him this second. (e) At 4.18pm on 12 November 2022, you text Mr Dennett: Just spoke to kurt. Ravs told him to call KB yesterday a d ask her who's on the panel for the ED. She wouldn't tell him other than to say union industry and her. Kurt was told to say they don't want her on the panel so he did. She was very much taken aback and says she has to be and he says no it's a conflict. You go on to relay more of your conversation with Mr Pauls over further text messages with Mr Dennett. (f) At 10.59pm on 2 December 2022, when texting Mr Dennett about applicants for a position, you wrote: When kurt said unitity water I said where else has that guy worked he went through the resume and eventually it’s hall construction. Has to be him. (g) At 7.12pm on 15 March 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Kurt says I told you to be patient I told you we’d get there when we could. (h) At 7.54pm on 16 June 2023, you text Mr Dennett: Yeah kurt says do it and then when they don’t short list from recruitment list ask why. Mr Dennett text you: If Kurt got anything he gets you shortlisted. If you don’t they will be blow it up. In response, you text: Yeah that’s what he said. 7. There are other calls of shorter duration. The length and frequency of the phone calls, at least in the available evidence, suggests you had a personal friendship or association with Mr Pauls that went beyond a mere professional association. 8. Your personal friendship with Mr Pauls created, at the very least, a potential or perceived conflict of interest with your duties for OIR given his position as a CFMEU official. A reasonable person could perceive that you might display favouritism towards Mr Pauls and/or the CFMEU due to your friendship. A perception of bias could undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of OIR. -- 78 of 80 -- 79 9. You did not declare any conflict of interest arising from your personal friendship with Mr Pauls in accordance with the requirements imposed upon you to do so. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 6 and in particular, pages 51 to 55 and Attachments 10 and 28 of the Investigation Report and Attachment 9 to this notice. Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 6, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(g) of the Act, in that you have contravened, without reasonable excuse, a provision of this Act, namely: Public Sector Act 2022 89 Conflicts of interest—public sector employee (1) If a public sector employee has an interest that conflicts or may conflict with the discharge of the employee’s duties, the employee— (a) must disclose the nature of the interest and conflict to the employee’s chief executive as soon as practicable after the relevant facts come to the employee’s knowledge; and (b) must not take action or further action concerning a matter that is, or may be, affected by the conflict unless authorised by the employee’s chief executive. (2) A public sector employee’s chief executive may direct the employee to resolve a conflict or possible conflict between an interest of the employee and the employee’s duties. (3) A reference to a public sector employee in this section does not include a reference to a chief executive of a public sector entity. ALLEGATION 7 (Investigation Report Allegation 8) You failed to comply with reasonable and lawful directions issued to you to not have contact with OIR clients on your personal mobile telephone. The particulars of Allegation 7 are as follows: 1. I refer to particulars 2 to 4 of Allegation 1. 2. On 15 May 2020, Craig Allen, then Deputy Director-General, OIR issued you a direction to not communicate with OIR clients using your personal mobile telephone. -- 79 of 80 -- 80 3. This direction was issued to you at the end of an investigation into complaints received by OIR alleging an inappropriate association between yourself and the CFMEU. Although the investigation concluded that none of the allegations against you were capable of substantiation, it noted you had received communications from union representatives and other clients through your personal mobile phone and also by email to your personal email service. 4. Mr Allen reinforced with you, by his letter, his expectation that work-related communications with clients must, at all times, be facilitated through official telephone, email and work-based facilities. 5. On 27 October 2022, Andrew Harris, then Executive Director, WHS Compliance and Field Services emailed you to reiterate the direction to you not to use your personal mobile phone for a work related matter. You were directed to: (a) immediately liaise with any OIR clients who may still contact you through your personal mobile telephone, and advise them to contact you only on your work mobile telephone; (b) provide your work telephone contact number to all those clients you have contact with; (c) if you receive any work related contact through your private mobile telephone, that you will immediately onforward the content to your work mobile telephone or work email address and deal with the content of any messages or work related matters in compliance with accepted OIR practices at all times. 6. As a public sector employee, you are required to comply with lawful and reasonable directions given to you by a responsible person. Your alleged communications with Mr Kupsch and Mr Pauls (the subject of Allegations 5 and 6) were contrary to the directions issued to you by Mr Allen and Mr Harris. I refer you to the Investigation Report for further particulars of Allegation 7 and in particular, pages 56 to 66 and Attachments 10, 25 to 30 of the Investigation Report. Having considered the investigation material before me in respect of Allegation 7, I consider that you may be liable to disciplinary findings on the following basis: (a) Pursuant to section 91(1)(b) of the Act, in that you have been guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of section 91(5)(a). Alternatively, (b) Pursuant to section 91(1)(d) in that you have been contravened, without reasonable excuse, a direction given to the employee as a public sector employee by a responsible person. -- 80 of 80 --