Canendo v State of Queensland (State Library Queensland) [2026] QIRC 165

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Canendo v State of Queensland (State Library Queensland) [2026] QIRC 165 PARTIES: Canendo, Christina (Appellant) v State of Queensland (State Library Queensland) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/119 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Directive Decision DELIVERED ON: 15 May 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Pratt IC On the papers ORDERS: 1. The appeal will not be heard. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. The decision of 25 June 2025 refusing to extend leave without pay for Ms Canendo is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: INDUSTRIAL LAW – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against a directive decision – where the appellant has resigned from her employment – consideration of practical utility to hear the appeal – consideration of whether any outcome of the appeal could result in the respondent being compelled to reinstate the appellant – found that the commission does -- 1 of 5 -- 2 not have powers to reinstate the appellant if the appeal was heard – found that there is no practical utility in hearing the appeal – appeal dismissed – decision confirmed LEGISLATION: CASES: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562A, s 562C Minister for Industrial Relations Directive 12/24: Special Leave Hinspeter v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 163 Smith v State of Queensland (Department of Education) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 398 Venables v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 137 Reasons for Decision [1] Ms Canendo was, up until she resigned, an employee of the Respondent, State Library of Queensland ('State Library'). She was on an extended period of leave without pay in order to pursue other employment opportunities. [2] Ms Canendo has filed an appeal of a directive decision, made pursuant to the Minister for Industrial Relations Directive 12/24: Special Leave, refusing her application for an extension of the special leave without pay period. However, Ms Canendo has since resigned from her employment. [3] After the resignation became known to the Commission, I called the matter on and expressed my concerns as to practical utility of hearing an appeal. I directed the parties to file submissions as to whether the Commission should hear the appeal pursuant to s 562A (3) (b) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'). The concern I raised, and sought submissions from the parties about, was what practical utility there was in hearing the appeal of the decision refusing to extend leave without pay in circumstances where Ms Canendo no longer worked for the State Library. -- 2 of 5 -- 3 The issue [4] The issue I must decide is whether the Commission should hear the appeal in light of the concerns around whether there is any practical utility in doing so. [5] The reason for that is that these appeals have a narrow compass. They are not broad inquiries into all of the circumstances and history behind a range of grievances an appellant seeks to put before the Commission. These appeals are confined to assessing whether the decision (to not extend leave without pay in this case) was 'fair and reasonable' in the circumstances. [6] Any remedy that the Commission can provide if there is a finding that the decision was not fair and reasonable is limited. In this case, for example, if I were to find that the decision refusing to extend leave without pay was not fair and reasonable, the only remedies I could grant Ms Canendo would be to either set aside that decision and require the decision-maker to consider the matter again in light of whatever reasons I provided as to where the decision was lacking, or replace the decision with my own. Either way, on the best-case scenario for Ms Canendo, a decision by me requiring the leave without pay to be extended may be of no practical utility in circumstances where the contract of employment itself has ended. Why Ms Canendo has not demonstrated that practical utility exists [7] Ms Canendo does not dispute the fact that she terminated the employment contract. Her submissions on the question of whether the Commission should hear the appeal can be summarised briefly. No submission directly engages with the question of practical utility of hearing the appeal that I raised at the mention of the matter and directed the parties to address. Rather, Ms Canendo simply agitates her grievances over the situation that has arisen since her resignation. Namely, the alternative position she was seeking has fallen through and she now finds herself unemployed. That does not address in any way the question with respect to practical utility that I have referred to above. [8] The State Library relies on the decision in Venables1 citing his Honour Merrell DP's observations that Ms Venables no longer being an employee was a compelling reason not to hear the appeal. [9] The State Library refers to that part of the Venables decision where his Honour stated that even if he were to find that the relevant decision was not fair and reasonable, any decision his Honour could make in the circumstances where Ms Venables was no longer an employee could have no practical effect. As well, his Honour held that the Commission's time should only be spent hearing and determining public service appeals where there will be some practical effect upon the employee's continued employment. 1 Venables v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 137 ('Venables'). -- 3 of 5 -- 4 Therefore, it was held that in Ms Venables' case, no decision his Honour could have made would have had any practical effect on her continued employment. His Honour went on to find that that was a compelling reason not to hear Ms Venables' appeal. [10] There is some force to the State Library's submissions in my opinion. Recently, Gazenbeek IC dealt with the same issue in Hinspeter2 and relied on Venables and the decision in Smith.3 Hinspeter was a case where the appellant resigned from her employment after having lodged an appeal of a disciplinary findings decision. Similar to the current situation, Gazenbeek IC raised concerns with the parties as to practical utility and referred the parties to the decisions in Smith and Venables, directing submissions to be filed as to whether the Commission should continue to hear the appeal or refrain from doing so. [11] Relying on the decision in Venables, Gazenbeek IC observed that if he proceeded to consider whether the disciplinary finding decision was fair and reasonable there could be no practical effect from any decision he made in circumstances where the appellant in that case had terminated her contract of employment. Gazenbeek IC observed that even if he were to set aside and substitute the decision with a new decision (namely, that the allegation should not have been substantiated) that decision would have no practical effect on the appellant because she was no longer an employee of the respondent. Accordingly, Gazenbeek IC concluded that there was no practical utility in hearing the appeal because any finding arising from it had no practical effect in the circumstances. Gazenbeek IC concluded that this was a compelling reason not to hear the appeal. [12] Smith was a decision by his Honour, Merrell DP, dealing with the practical utility of an appeal (of a conversion decision in that case) in circumstances where the appellant, Mr Smith, was no longer an employee. His Honour observed, that s 562C (1) (c) of the IR Act does not confer power on the Commission to effectively order the reinstatement or re-employment of the former employee by substituting a decision, the effect of which was to require the employer to re-engage the employee after a termination.4 [13] Applying Smith to the present case, even if Ms Canendo is submitting (for it is not entirely clear) that the practical utility of hearing her appeal might be a decision which results in compelling the State Library to somehow reverse its decision, which might give rise to it deciding to consequently re-engage her, that is simply not possible. Nor is an order directly requiring the State Library to re-engage Ms Canendo. There is no practical or legal way to do that through these proceedings in my opinion. [14] Applying Smith, Venables and Hinspeter to the present case, I conclude that the State Library's submissions should be accepted. I find that there is no practical utility in hearing 2 Hinspeter v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 163 ('Hinspeter'). 3 Smith v State of Queensland (Department of Education) (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 398 ('Smith'). 4 Ibid [10]. -- 4 of 5 -- 5 the appeal because any remedy Ms Canendo could possibly obtain will have no practical effect or utility. That is a compelling reason as to why the Commission should not hear the appeal in my opinion. I order accordingly. Orders 1. The appeal will not be heard. 2. The appeal is dismissed. 3. The decision of 25 June 2025 refusing to extend leave without pay for Ms Canendo is confirmed. -- 5 of 5 --