Bokhoree v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 151

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Bokhoree v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 151 PARTIES: Bokhoree, Pavreta (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2022/1031 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Fair Treatment Decision DELIVERED ON: 30 April 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Knight IC On the papers ORDER: Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision of Professor Kieran Keyes, Health Service Chief Executive, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – FAIR TREATMENT APPEAL – individual employee grievance – internal review under Stage 2 of grievance process – Directive 11/20 – fair treatment decision – consideration of whether decision appealed against was fair and reasonable – review limited to matters raised in internal review request – timeliness exclusions under cl 8.1 – jurisdictional exclusions for matters within discipline process under cl 6.1(b) and -- 1 of 39 -- 2 6.1(h) – recruitment exclusion under cl 6.1(c) – appeal not a rehearing – held decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances – confirmed the decision appealed against LEGISLATION: CASES: Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, 562C Public Sector Act 2008 (Qld) s 194, 195 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245 Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 016 Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume (No. 3) 2024 ICQ 3 Nuske v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 199 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Monavvari v Queensland (Queensland Health, eHealth) [2020] QIRC 232 Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252 -- 2 of 39 -- 3 Reasons for Decision [1] Ms Pavreta Bokhoree is employed as a registered nurse ('RN') within the Surgical Services Group of the Townsville Hospital and Health Service ('THHS').1 [2] Ms Bokhoree has lodged an appeal, pursuant to section 194(1)(eb) of the Public Sector Act 2008 ('PS Act') in response to a decision of Professor Kieran Keyes of the Townsville Hospital and Health Service ('the Decision').2 In that decision, Professor Keyes confirmed an earlier decision of Ms Therese Cotter in relation to an internal grievance filed by Ms Bokhoree and determined that it was fair and reasonable. [3] Ms Bokhoree maintains the decision of Professor Keyes is unfair and unreasonable. Nature of the Appeal [4] Section 194 of the PS Act identifies the type of decisions against which an appeal can be made: 194 Decision against which appeals may be made (1) An appeal may be made against the following decisions— … (eb) a decision a public service employee believes is unfair and unreasonable (a fair treatment decision); [5] Section 562B(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act') requires the appeal to be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.3 The word 'review' has no settled meaning, and so it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.4 Section 562B(3) defines the purpose of the appeal as to decide whether that decision was fair and reasonable.5 The adjectives 'fair' and 'reasonable' should be given their ordinary meaning.6 The Commission's role is therefore confined to a review of the decision and the decision-making process associated with it.7 [6] The decision under appeal is the decision of Professor Keyes made at Stage 2 of the individual employee grievance process under the Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) ('the Directive'). 1 Respondent's Submissions filed 5 July 2023 ('Respondent's Submissions'), [6]. 2 Appeal Notice filed 23 December 2022 ('Appeal Notice'). 3 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2) ('IR Act'). 4 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261. 5 IR Act s 562B(3) (n 3). 6 Colebourne v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) (No 2) [2022] QIRC 016 ('Colebourne'), [25]. 7 Colebourne (n 6), [23]; Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) ('Goodall'), 5. -- 3 of 39 -- 4 [7] The single issue for determination is whether that decision was fair and reasonable.8 Findings reasonably open to Professor Keyes on the materials before him should not be disturbed on appeal. What decisions can the Commission make? [8] In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Commission may:9 • 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. Background [9] Ms Bokhoree is presently engaged in alternative duties pending the resolution of a separate show cause process that commenced in response to concerns about her professional conduct and workplace behaviour.10 [10] The concerns which form the basis of the show cause process relate to her alleged failure to comply with reasonable and lawful directions to amend theatre booking lists and contact patients about amendments to surgery bookings, her alleged failure to participate in performance and development meetings or in a meeting to discuss a Performance Improvement Plan and her failure to demonstrate respect when communicating with medical officers and colleagues.11 [11] That show cause process commenced before Ms Bokhoree raised the grievances which are the subject of this Appeal. The Grievances [12] Ms Bokhoree's initial internal grievance raised numerous concerns about Ms Davies, Nursing Director of Peri-operative and Outpatient Services, and Ms Laura Irving, Nurse Unit Manager and Elective Surgery Coordinator within Elective Surgical Bookings, along with other medical professionals working in that area.12 8 Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health Service [2014] QSC 252 ('Page'), (Byrne SJA). 9 IR Act s 562C (n 3). 10 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Appendix 1, [3]. 11 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [4]. 12 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [6]; Stage 2 Internal Review Decision of Professor Kieran Keyes dated 5 December 2022 ('Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision'), 1. -- 4 of 39 -- 5 [13] The grievance was voluminous, comprising a 15-page covering letter, 132 pages of appendices numbered 1 to 43, and 365 pages of supporting documents.13 [14] The covering letter alleged ongoing bullying and harassment, maladministration, management's failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, vicarious liability, occupational violence and misrepresentation. Ms Bokhoree requested the grievance be managed in accordance with the Nurses and Midwives (Queensland Health) Award – State 2015 ('the Award').14 Stage 1 – Local Action [15] The THHS notified Ms Bokhoree that given the large volume of material lodged, a longer period would be required for a thorough review.15 [16] Ms Therese Cotter, Service Group Director of the Surgical Service Group, subsequently delivered the Stage 1 decision ('the Cotter decision'), which addressed each of the 43 appendices included in Ms Bokhoree's initial grievance. The Cotter decision ran to 33 pages.16 Stage 2 - Internal Review [17] The Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union ('QNMU') subsequently filed an appeal of the Cotter decision on Ms Bokhoree's behalf. Ms Bokhoree's covering letter of the same date referred to but did not re-attach the original 43 appendices and supporting material.17 Ms Bokhoree advised the THHS that she would rely on the documents already provided with her original grievance.18 [18] Professor Keyes subsequently delivered his written decision, which is 54 pages in length.19 He confirmed Ms Cotter's decision and determined it was fair and reasonable.20 13 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [7]. 14 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [8]; Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1. 15 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [9]. 16 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [12]; Stage 1 Internal Review Decision of Ms Therese Cotter dated 27 May 2022 ('Ms Cotter Stage 1 Internal Review Decision'); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1. 17 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [16]. 18 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [17], Annexure 1B. 19 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [19]. 20 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 52. -- 5 of 39 -- 6 The Appeal [19] Like the grievance bundle that preceded it, the Appeal Notice is voluminous. It contains a total of 749 pages, including a Schedule, the Cotter Decision of 33 pages, and the Keyes Decision of 54 pages. The grievance documents attached to the Notice of Appeal comprised the 15-page covering letter, the 43 appendices (132 pages), and 456 pages of supporting documents.21 [20] Due to the large volume and somewhat confusing nature of the material filed, I set down a conference to better understand the Grounds of Appeal and which aspects of Professor Keyes' decision Ms Bokhoree considered were unfair or unreasonable.22 [21] At Ms Bokhoree's request, the Appeal was held in abeyance for some time following the conference, while she sought further guidance and legal support in respect of the preparation of further written submissions in support of the Appeal. [22] A Directions Order was issued some time later requiring Ms Bokhoree to file written submissions of no more than five pages, with any relevant attachments, clearly identifying the conclusions within Professor Keyes' decision that she considered unfair. [23] The Respondent was directed to file submissions of the same length. Ms Bokhoree was given a right of reply and sought several extensions of time to file the submissions. Ultimately, no reply has been filed. Professor Keyes' Decision [24] The Decision letter works through each of the 43 appendices in turn. For each, Professor Keyes has summarised Ms Bokhoree's concerns and Ms Cotter's decision and, in most instances, reaches an express conclusion as to whether Ms Cotter's decision was fair and reasonable.23 [25] Ms Bokhoree has identified 26 of those 43 appendices in issue on this Appeal, namely Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 40, 42 and 43.24 I have summarised Professor Keyes' findings on those 26 appendices below. 21 Appeal Notice (n 2). 22 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), 1 (footnote 1). 23 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 3-52. 24 Applicant’s Submissions filed 13 June 2023 ('Applicant's Submissions'), 1. -- 6 of 39 -- 7 Appendix 1 – Fabricated complaint by Vascular consultants [26] Ms Bokhoree contended that Ms Irving had instigated a fabricated complaint by Drs Velu and White against her. Professor Keyes found that Ms Bokhoree had herself asked Ms Irving to put the concerns in writing, and that her doing so could not amount to instigating a complaint. He further found there was no additional evidence to suggest that the doctors' concerns were fabricated and confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.25 Appendix 2 – Riskman manipulation [27] Ms Bokhoree contended that Riskman entries had been manipulated to cover up medical negligence. Her grievance primarily concerned two patients. The first was Patient R, a Plastics patient. A Riskman report (3206791) had been entered by the Patient Safety team following a complaint received from the patient. Ms Bokhoree submitted that the patient's circumstances had been clearly documented, that the Cancer Care Coordinator had advised her the patient was known to be always complaining, and that Ms Irving had used the Riskman to make her look incompetent. [28] The second was Patient Alpha, a Vascular patient, for whom Ms Bokhoree had herself created a Riskman following a phone discussion with the patient who had refused treatment from Dr Vicky White and had raised a series of complaints. Ms Bokhoree submitted that Ms Irving had questioned her motives in lodging that Riskman, including by asking whether she had a vendetta against Dr White, and that the Riskman had been overlooked rather than used to improve clinical practice.26 [29] Ms Cotter found that Ms Irving had not engaged in corrupt conduct in relation to the Patient R Riskman, which had been generated by Patient Safety in accordance with THHS processes. Ms Cotter also found that Ms Bokhoree had entered two Riskman reports about the same patient complaint, one of which had been recorded as a duplicate and removed; and that the Surgical Service Group had clinically reviewed the Alpha complaint and found no evidence of medical negligence, malpractice or manipulation of patient statements, noting that the patient had not in fact made any complaint about the procedure undertaken by Dr White.27 Professor Keyes recorded that his review was limited to the issues Ms Bokhoree had raised in her internal review request, and confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.28 25 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 3. 26 Appeal Notice (n 2), 51-55 (Appendix 2); Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 2, 4. 27 Ms Cotter Stage 1 Internal Review Decision (n 16), 2. 28 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 3-4. -- 7 of 39 -- 8 Appendix 3 – alleged targeting and harassment by Ms Irving and reprisal for OHO contact [30] Ms Bokhoree contended she had been: (a) coerced into participating in malpractice; (b) harassed and threatened and had raised these matters with the Chief Operating Officer ('COO'), Mr Stephen Eaton; and (c) suspended in retaliation for contacting the Office of the Health Ombudsman ('OHO'). [31] Professor Keyes considered that the issues raised in this appendix had been dealt with by Mr Eaton and were closed. He stated that he would not review matters related to Ms Bokhoree's suspension or discipline.29 [32] The earlier complaint had arisen from an incident in which Ms Bokhoree declined to book a Vascular patient (Patient X) onto a theatre list, on the basis that the most recent ieMR notation from the Vascular Consultant recorded the patient as unfit for surgery and had not been updated. [33] Ms Bokhoree alleged that the consultant had refused to update the notes, that Ms Davies had then verbally directed her to make the booking and had spoken to her in an aggressive and threatening manner and that she had subsequently raised concerns with the OHO.30 On 25 March 2021, Mr Eaton advised Ms Bokhoree that her OHO concerns were not substantiated. Those concerns related to the medical practices of the Vascular team, that she had been requested to make a booking on the verbal direction of a Staff Specialist, that she had been requested to act outside her scope of practice and that a Riskman she had created had been deleted. [34] Ms Bokhoree did not appeal Mr Eaton's findings. Professor Keyes therefore considered those matters closed and outside the scope of his review.31 29 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5. 30 Appeal Notice (n 2) 56-60 (Appendix 3); Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 2-3. 31 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5. -- 8 of 39 -- 9 Appendix 4 – Meetings, fictitious complaint and PA&D process [35] Ms Bokhoree reported that Ms Irving had used intimidation and harassment to produce unreasonable outcomes and had made a fictitious complaint with the support of Dr White and Dr Velu.32 Professor Keyes addressed parts of Appendix 4 on the merits but, because Ms Bokhoree's participation in Performance Assessment and Development ('PA&D') discussions was being dealt with in the discipline process, did not consider that issue. [36] Professor Keyes determined that the alleged fabrication had been previously closed due to a lack of evidence, and that Ms Cotter had reviewed the relevant material and found no evidence of bullying or harassment by Ms Irving.33 Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.34 Appendix 5 – PA&D conducted on 21 August [37] Ms Bokhoree contended that Ms Irving had pressured her to attend a PA&D meeting in which Ms Irving had raised resolved matters and made adverse comments without justification.35 Professor Keyes recorded that this grievance had previously been addressed by Mr Eaton and that he would not consider the issue again.36 He considered that Ms Irving's actions in scheduling the PA&D meeting and addressing communication issues with Ms Bokhoree were reasonable, that it was relevant to discuss past incidents and document concerns and that Ms Bokhoree had ample opportunity to raise the issue earlier and had not done so. Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.37 Appendix 6 – Verbal assault and managerial threat by Ms Davies [38] In her original grievance, Ms Bokhoree submitted that on 28 January 2021 she had been verbally assaulted, belittled, severely reprimanded, humiliated and yelled at in front of other staff by Ms Davies. The exchange was said to have arisen from a request that Ms Davies had emailed to Clinical Nurse ('CN') Green for certain information on 27 January 2021 while Ms Bokhoree was on her rostered day off and Ms Irving was on leave. Ms Bokhoree submitted that on her return to work the following day, Ms Davies had threatened her with a formal complaint to HR, given her one hour to provide the information, blamed her for delays caused by the communication failures of others and had not apologised.38 32 Appeal Notice (n 2), 61-63 (Appendix 4). 33 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5-6. 34 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 6. 35 Appeal Notice (n 2), 64-69 (Appendix 5). 36 See Appendix 3 above. 37 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 6. 38 Appeal Notice (n 2), 70-72 (Appendix 6). -- 9 of 39 -- 10 [39] Ms Cotter found that Ms Davies' request was urgent, that her actions in seeking the information were appropriate and that she had not spoken inappropriately to Ms Bokhoree. Ms Cotter also observed that, as the incident had occurred more than 12 months earlier, it was unclear why Ms Bokhoree was raising it at that stage.39 Professor Keyes concluded that the grievance had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct and did not include sufficient information to enable Ms Cotter to take any further action, and confirmed her decision as fair and reasonable.40 Appendix 8 to 12 – Bullying and harassment by Ms Davies, Ms Cox and Ms Irving in connection with the file note in July [40] The background against which these grievances were said to have taken place included: • an email sent by Ms Bokhoree to the Vascular team in which she said, "is this a joke?" and that "one more stuff up from Vascular and I will be walking out from this place"; and • the meeting that followed and a file note Ms Cox prepared and requested her to sign. [41] Professor Keyes recorded that in the meeting on 16 July, Ms Bokhoree acknowledged that her communication and tone were not in line with the Code of Conduct, and that, while he acknowledged she was frustrated, the signing of a file note that is a record of conversation is not an unreasonable request. [42] Professor Keyes also determined that the grievances in Appendices 9, 10 and 11 had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct, and well before the grievance had been raised by Ms Bokhoree.41 He confirmed Ms Cotter's decisions on Appendices 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as fair and reasonable. Appendix 13 - Text message on day off, 5 May [43] Ms Bokhoree submitted that Ms Irving had harassed her by sending a text message on her day off, seeking confirmation of whether or not Ms Bokhoree had organised a union representative for a meeting scheduled on the following day.42 Professor Keyes concluded it was not unreasonable for a manager to confirm an employee's attendance at a meeting, that the communication did not constitute harassment and that the grievance had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible.43 He confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable. 39 Ms Cotter Stage 1 Internal Review Decision (n 16), 5. 40 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 7. 41 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 9-11. 42 Appeal Notice (n 2), 90-91 (Appendix 13). 43 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 13-14. -- 10 of 39 -- 11 Appendix 14 - Alleged harassment via excessive meeting invitations and use of digital platforms [44] Ms Bokhoree contended Ms Irving had harassed her through excessive and persistent meeting invitations, including invitations sent during periods where she was on leave or on other occasions when she was not at work.44 Professor Keyes set out the chronology of the meetings Ms Irving had scheduled. He also recorded Ms Cotter's findings that several attempts had been made to schedule a PA&D meeting and that Ms Bokhoree had refused to participate on each occasion.45 He agreed with Ms Cotter that those attempts did not constitute harassment, found that any cancellations had been adequately explained, and observed that the grievance had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible.46 Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable. Appendix 15 - Alleged demeaning conduct by Ms Irving in front of colleagues [45] Ms Bokhoree contended that on 6 May 2021, in the booking office, she had raised with Ms Irving a concern about a casual relief nurse who had refused to sit in the main booking office during RN Horan's leave, which she maintained was impacting the team's ability to manage incoming calls. Ms Bokhoree submitted that instead of engaging with that concern, Ms Irving had openly responded "you do not do your job, and I did your job better while you were away", in front of other staff in the office, and that the comment was disrespectful and amounted to public humiliation and bullying.47 [46] Ms Cotter concluded that Ms Irving had not been critical of any staff but instead had been attempting to address concerns raised by several staff members and bring the matter to a resolution. She concluded that given the passage of time and the absence of any further statements, no further action was required. Further, Ms Cotter found that Ms Irving did not intentionally seek to harass or humiliate Ms Bokhoree on 6 May.48 [47] Professor Keyes confirmed that decision as fair and reasonable, also noting that the grievance had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible and did not include sufficient information to permit Ms Cotter to take any further action.49 44 Appeal Notice (n 2), 92-95 (Appendix 14). 45 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 14-15. 46 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 14-15. 47 Appeal Notice (n 2), 96-98 (Appendix 15). 48 Ms Cotter Stage 1 Internal Review Decision (n 16), 10. 49 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 17. -- 11 of 39 -- 12 Appendix 16 - Alleged toxic leadership and microaggression [48] Ms Cotter's position was that the incident on 7 May 2021, which is the subject of this Appendix, arose from a meeting in which Ms Irving was attempting to address concerns raised by a work colleague directly with Ms Bokhoree. Ms Cotter concluded that no further action was required, having regard to the passage of time and the absence of any further statements. Ms Cotter also noted that the incident was related to the matters raised in Appendix 15, which concerned the previous day, 6 May 2021.50 Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable, also noting that the grievance had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible.51 Appendix 18 - Text message on 8 October 2021 about training of new administration officers [49] Ms Bokhoree contended that Ms Irving had reprimanded her by way of a text message sent on 8 October 2021, advising that other staff members had been allocated to assist with the onboarding of two new administration officers, Ms Kristie and Ms Debbie, in Ms Irving's absence. Ms Bokhoree submitted that there was no proper onboarding process in place, that the new administration officers had been coming directly to her for training and support and that Ms Irving's direction that she not provide them with further advice or training amounted to an unjust reprimand and an attempt to suppress collegial communication.52 [50] Ms Cotter found that the text message was not a reprimand, that other staff members had already been allocated to assist with the onboarding in Ms Irving's absence and that Ms Irving developed a detailed training plan for the new officers which was inconsistent with what Ms Bokhoree was providing.53 Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.54 Appendix 20 - Ms Irving's handling of complaint by Casual AO Ms King [51] Ms Bokhoree contended that since 2020, she had repeatedly raised with Ms Irving concerns about the conduct of casual Administration Officer ('AO'), Ms Chloe King, including swearing in the office, disrespectful behaviour towards staff and patients and inappropriate comments about patients' conditions (which she described as derogatory and insensitive towards patients with cancer and gynaecological conditions). 50 Ms Cotter Stage 1 Internal Review Decision (n 16), 11. 51 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 17. 52 Appeal Notice (n 2), 101 (Appendix 18). 53 Ms Cotter Stage 1 Internal Review Decision (n 16), 12. 54 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 19-20. -- 12 of 39 -- 13 [52] Ms Bokhoree submitted that Ms Irving had repeatedly declined to act on those concerns but had nonetheless taken up and dealt with a workplace grievance lodged by Ms King against her, in a way that was unfair and reflected a pre-determined outcome in Ms King's favour.55 [53] Professor Keyes set out the chronology of Ms Irving's handling of Ms King's grievance, including that Ms Irving had given Ms Bokhoree an opportunity to respond, granted her an extension of time, and accepted a response from her QNMU representative.56 Professor Keyes considered that managers and supervisors must manage individual employee grievances in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that Ms Irving had done so, by providing Ms Bokhoree with an opportunity to respond to Ms King's grievance. He recorded that Ms Irving's outcome to that grievance had identified management action to be taken, and that Ms Bokhoree's own grievance (Appendix 20) had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct. Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision in relation to Appendix 20 as fair and reasonable.57 Appendix 26 – Bias and unfavourable treatment [54] Ms Bokhoree contended that Ms Cotter had not read the appendices and evidence she had supplied. In particular, she submitted that, in connection with the workplace grievance lodged by Ms King, she had been pressured to provide a response within a strict deadline, while Ms Irving had been slow in delivering the outcome of the investigation, and that this disparity demonstrated bias and unfavourable treatment towards her.58 Professor Keyes recorded Ms Cotter's response that this was the same matter addressed under Appendices 20, 24 and 25 and stated that he had already considered the grievance under those appendices.59 Appendix 27 – Alleged manipulation of investigation [55] Ms Bokhoree submitted the investigation conducted by Ms Irving into the Ms King matter had been poorly carried out and that a pre-determined decision in favour of Ms King had been made. Professor Keyes recorded Ms Cotter's response that the incident had been appropriately investigated and that the allegation of pre-determination was not supported. Professor Keyes further observed that he had considered the matter in his response to Appendices 20, 24, 25 and 26.60 55 Appeal Notice (n 2), 103-113 (Appendix 20). 56 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 21-23. 57 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 23. 58 Appeal Notice (n 2), 127 (Appendix 26). 59 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 28. 60 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 29. -- 13 of 39 -- 14 Appendix 29 – Leave rejection [56] Ms Bokhoree contended her leave application had been unfairly rejected.61 Professor Keyes recorded the chronology of the leave application process and its subsequent approval and confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.62 Appendix 33 – Team trial structural change project [57] Ms Bokhoree contended Ms Irving had disregarded staff feedback in implementing a structural change project.63 Professor Keyes recorded Ms Cotter's findings that a full consultation process had been followed in accordance with Queensland Health guidelines, that Ms Irving had given consideration to the feedback provided and that the change had been well implemented. While it was recognised the Award provides for consultation in relation to organisational and structural change, Ms Bokhoree had not demonstrated how Ms Irving had breached that provision. Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.64 Appendix 34 – Outsourcing team initiative [58] Ms Bokhoree contended that Ms Irving had disengaged employees from decision-making about the Outsourcing team and had silenced staff feedback or queries on the topic. She submitted that the team had been established with one permanent CN, one casual RN and one casual AO drawn from elective staffing. Moreover, that after the end of the financial year the team had been advised that no further funding was available and that the elective bookings team was nonetheless left short-staffed. [59] Ms Bokhoree submitted that when she and other booking officers had asked Ms Irving questions about the team, the response had been to the effect that she was not meant to know about the Outsourcing team because it was different, and that her queries were treated as a harsh or unfair reprimand.65 [60] Ms Cotter found that the initiative had been instigated by the Surgical Service Group Leadership team, that Ms Irving had been acting under direction in setting it up, that additional funding and staff had been provided to support it and that information had been provided in team meetings. Ms Cotter did not consider Ms Irving's response to Ms Bokhoree's query to have been harsh, unjust or an unfair reprimand, and considered that the grievance did not include sufficient information to permit her to take any further action. Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.66 61 Appeal Notice (n 2), 135-137 (Appendix 29). 62 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 34-35. 63 Appeal Notice (n 2), 144-148 (Appendix 33). 64 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 40. 65 Appeal Notice (n 2), 149-150 (Appendix 34). 66 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 41. -- 14 of 39 -- 15 Appendix 35 – Career stagnation and recruitment [61] Within her grievance, Ms Bokhoree submitted she had faced career stagnation as a reprisal and that Ms Irving had provided a negative referee report.67 [62] Professor Keyes recorded Ms Cotter's conclusions in respect of: (a) the merit principle; (b) Ms Irving's panel chair training; and (c) the absence of unfairness or bias in the recruitment decisions. [63] Professor Keyes further recorded that the recruitment and selection processes Ms Bokhoree had referred to included appeal rights and that on the information available to him she had not lodged an appeal under the relevant Directive. Professor Keyes was also of the view that Ms Bokhoree had not included sufficient information to enable Ms Cotter to take any other appropriate action than what was included in her response. For those reasons, he confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.68 Appendix 40 – PA&D appraisal review [64] Ms Bokhoree contended that Ms Irving had misused her authority and breached the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in the conduct of an appraisal review.69 Professor Keyes set out an extensive chronology of correspondence between Ms Bokhoree, Ms Irving and the Vascular team. He recorded Ms Cotter's findings on Ms Irving's role and the management of PA&D processes. [65] Professor Keyes observed that the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is not applicable to a Health Service employee. He concluded that: (a) Ms Irving was required to conduct a PA&D meeting on an annual basis; (b) the meeting could not properly be characterised as a misuse of authority; and (c) it was not unreasonable to complete a file note as a record of the conversation and to ask attendees to sign it. [66] Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decision as fair and reasonable.70 67 Appeal Notice (n 2), 151-154 (Appendix 35). 68 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 42-43. 69 Appeal Notice (n 2), 164-186 (Appendix 40). 70 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 49-51. -- 15 of 39 -- 16 Appendix 42 – Suspension without explanation [67] Professor Keyes stated that he would not be reviewing issues in relation to Ms Bokhoree's suspension show cause process.71 Appendix 43 – Receipt of allegations during recreation leave [68] Professor Keyes again stated that he would not be reviewing issues in relation to Ms Bokhoree's suspension or discipline matters.72 Professor Keyes' Conclusion [69] For the reasons given throughout his letter, Professor Keyes considered Ms Cotter's decision to be fair and reasonable and confirmed the decision.73 Relevant Legislative Framework [70] Directive 11/20 governs the management and resolution of individual employee grievances within the Queensland public service.74 [71] An individual employee grievance under the Directive is a grievance submitted by a current public service employee who holds an honest belief, on reasonable grounds, that: an administrative decision is unfair or unreasonable; the conduct or behaviour of another employee is unfair or unreasonable; such conduct constitutes bullying, sexual harassment, or vilification; such conduct breaches the Code of Conduct; or an act or decision is incompatible with human rights.75 [72] Clause 6.1 of the Directive identifies matters that fall outside the scope of an individual employee grievance. Relevantly, these include: a decision concerning a person's work performance, except where that decision is formally recorded as part of a periodic performance review; a decision made under chapter 6, part 2 of the PS Act relating to discipline; an investigation, suspension, or disciplinary process that is the subject of a current internal or external review under the PS Act and an applicable directive; and conduct or a decision that is already the subject of an application or complaint by the same employee to the Commission under chapter 8, part 1 of the IR Act (general protections), or to the Anti-Discrimination Commission under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).76 71 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 52. 72 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 52. 73 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 52. 74 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) cll 3.1, 3.2. 75 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 5.1. 76 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cll 6.1(b), (d), (h), (i)–(j). -- 16 of 39 -- 17 [73] Clause 9.2(d) of the Directive provides that an internal review is to be completed by the chief executive or their delegate and that the chief executive or their delegate is to determine whether the decision made through local action was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.77 [74] The chief executive or their delegate may decide to take no further action where the reasons for seeking internal review are insufficient, where the request is frivolous or vexatious or where the employee has unreasonably refused to participate in local action to resolve the grievance.78 [75] The written Stage 2 decision must outline the action taken to review the Stage 1 decision, the reasons for the decision or the decision to take no further action, any action proposed because of the review and any avenues of external review available, including applicable timeframes.79 [76] In this appeal, the Commission's task is to consider whether the Stage 2 decision-maker's determination as to the fairness and reasonableness of the Stage 1 decision was itself 'fair and reasonable'.80 Scope of the Appeal [77] Before turning to the parties' submissions, it is helpful to identify certain matters which, while plainly distressing for Ms Bokhoree, fall outside what this Commission can decide on a public service appeal of an internal review decision. [78] As touched on earlier, the Appeal Notice and supporting bundle run to more than 700 pages. In her submissions, Ms Bokhoree identifies 26 of the 43 grievance appendices as subjects of the appeal.81 Several themes recur in the materials. [79] A substantial part of Ms Bokhoree's case, in both her Appeal Notice and her submissions, takes the form of a restatement of the underlying allegations of bullying, harassment, intimidation, malpractice and other grievances against Ms Davies, Ms Irving and other staff, by reference to the original 132 page set of Appendices and the 456 pages of supporting documents.82 [80] The task of the Commission is not to undertake a fresh hearing on the merits.83 It is to determine whether Professor Keyes' decision was fair and reasonable on the materials before him.84 77 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 9.2(d). 78 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 9.2(e). 79 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 9.2(h). 80 IR Act s 562B(3) (n 3). 81 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1. 82 Appeal Notice (n 2), 7-16 (Schedule to Appeal); Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1-5. 83 Hume (n 85), [40]. 84 IR Act s 562B(3) (n 3); Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 9.2(d). -- 17 of 39 -- 18 [81] This position is borne out by the authorities. In State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Hume (No. 3),85 Deputy President Merrell observed that:86 … the review does not involve the Commission determining the matter afresh. The statutory text expressly provides that the duty of the Commission is to decide if the decision appealed against met the description of being '… fair and reasonable.' [82] To the extent Ms Bokhoree invites the Commission to substitute its own view of the underlying conduct for that of the agency-level decision-makers, that invitation falls beyond the scope of what the Commission may do. [83] Ms Bokhoree's submissions are framed predominantly as challenges on Ms Cotter's reasoning at Stage 1, rather than to Professor Keyes' reasoning at Stage 2.87 [84] Ms Cotter's decision is not the decision under appeal. It is the decision Professor Keyes was required to review. Ms Cotter's reasoning is therefore relevant only to the extent that Professor Keyes adopted it, and only insofar as that adoption was not fair and reasonable. Any invitation to the Commission to redo the Stage 2 review by examining Ms Cotter's decision afresh, likewise, falls outside the scope of this Appeal. [85] Relevantly, Ms Bokhoree has been engaged in a separate disciplinary process. Materials in her grievance bundle, particularly Appendices 3, 4, 42 and 43, appear to be directed at that process. That is, her suspension, the alternative duties direction, the First Show Cause and the receipt of allegations during her recreation leave. [86] In my view, those matters fall outside what may properly be the subject of an individual employee grievance under cl 6.1(b) of the Directive. [87] Ms Bokhoree's materials include challenges to specific recruitment or selection decisions in which she was not the successful applicant, particularly under Appendix 35.88 Recruitment and selection decisions cannot be the subject of a grievance under cl 6.1(c) of the Directive. They have their own appeal pathway under Appeals Directive (07/20), subject to certain mandatory conditions.89 [88] Ms Bokhoree's grievance materials also contain extensive complaints about the clinical practice of medical practitioners, including Drs Ingle, Gagun, White, Velu and Registrar Zaine. Those complaints include allegations of medical negligence, breaches of national clinical standards and patient safety concerns. 85 2024 ICQ 3 ('Hume'). 86 Hume (n 85), [38]. 87 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [12]. 88 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 41-43. 89 Appeals Directive (07/20) cl 5.2(e) (Appeals Directive (04/23) became operative on 1 March 2023 after this appeal was filed). -- 18 of 39 -- 19 [89] The Grievance Directive permits a grievance about "the conduct or behaviour of an employee, agent or contractor".90 To the extent Ms Bokhoree's complaints concern workplace conduct by clinicians towards her, those matters were within Professor Keyes' review, and I have considered them in connection with Issue 6 below. [90] Where Ms Bokhoree's complaints go to the clinical practice of medical practitioners, the proper forums are clinical complaints frameworks, the OHO, or the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. The Commission cannot, on a fair-treatment appeal, make findings about the clinical practice of medical practitioners. [91] Ms Bokhoree's materials make occasional reference to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in connection with Appendix 40.91 Professor Keyes correctly recorded that the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is not applicable to Ms Bokhoree as a Health Service employee.92 That is not in dispute and was not pressed by Ms Bokhoree on appeal. To the extent any reliance on the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) remains, it falls outside the scope of this appeal. [92] In identifying these matters, I do not diminish the genuine sense of grievance Ms Bokhoree evidently feels. She has lodged her grievances in considerable detail, and the materials clearly reflect the experience of an employee who has been deeply affected by what she perceives as unfair treatment by her line management and others. [93] This appeal, however, is the review of a single decision, being Professor Keyes' decision, against a single legal standard: whether that decision was fair and reasonable having regard to the decision-making process associated with that decision. The Commission's task does not extend further. [94] With those matters set to one side, I turn to the parties' submissions on the remaining issues before me. Ms Bokhoree's Submissions [95] Ms Bokhoree's submissions identify Professor Keyes' findings on 26 of the 43 appendices as the subject of the appeal, namely Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 40, 42 and 43.93 The submissions are organised under six key grounds. 90 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 5.1(b). 91 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 50. 92 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 50. 93 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1. -- 19 of 39 -- 20 Ground 1 - Failure to address grievances in accordance with the Award and the Code of Conduct [96] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes' decision was unfair because he failed to recognise that the THHS had not complied with the grievance procedures in the Award or with the principles in the Code of Conduct for the Queensland Public Service ('the PS Code').94 [97] Ms Bokhoree identifies the engaged provisions of the Award as cl 7.2(a), which provides that the objectives of the grievance procedure are to promote the prompt resolution of grievances by consultation, co-operation and discussion; and cl 7.2(c)(ii), which requires the employer to ensure that a grievance is investigated in a thorough, fair and impartial manner.95 She submits that Professor Keyes' decisions were not made in a manner that was consistent with the requirements around consultation, co-operation and discussion, and that none of her grievances about hospital processes, service and communication have been adequately addressed.96 [98] Ms Bokhoree identifies the relevant provisions of the PS Code as cll 2.1(c) and 2.2(a). She submits that those clauses provide that the THHS has a responsibility to treat complaints from clients and the community seriously, to respond to constructive feedback as an opportunity for improvement and to listen and respond to issues and concerns raised by individuals.97 [99] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes' failure to abide by the Award and the PS Code arises from his failure to consider, or properly consider, a significant number of grievances, in particular those relating to hospital processes, service and communication. She further submits that Professor Keyes has failed to acknowledge that Ms Cotter had not handled those grievances in accordance with the Award and the PS Code.98 By reference to Appendices 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 29, 40, 42 and 43, Ms Bokhoree provides specific examples in which she says it was unfair for Professor Keyes to have upheld Ms Cotter's decisions.99 94 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1. 95 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1. 96 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1. 97 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1-2. 98 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1. 99 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 2-3. -- 20 of 39 -- 21 Ground 2 - "closed" and "resolved" matters not given due consideration [100] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes unfairly upheld Ms Cotter's findings that several grievances were not raised within an appropriate period of time and therefore did not require due consideration.100 She contends that those matters nonetheless warranted consideration because, although they may have been treated as closed or resolved, they are relevant to establishing a pattern of behaviour by Ms Irving, Ms Davies and others; and to demonstrating the pattern of disregard given to her complaints.101 [101] Ms Bokhoree supports Ground 2 by reference to Appendix 3, and Ms Davies' direction of 6 August 2020,102 and to Appendices 42 and 43, being the suspension and disciplinary matters.103 Ground 3 - Failure to consider supporting evidence [102] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes failed to consider, or properly consider, supporting evidence she had provided in connection with a number of grievances.104 She catalogues 11 specific examples engaging Appendices 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 40, including the witness statements of Ms Hosking and Ms Rooker.105 In relation to Appendix 15, Ms Bokhoree states that Professor Keyes did not consider a statement attributed to Ms Irving in which she said to Ms Bokhoree, "Pav, that is petty, you're just being petty". Ms Bokhoree characterises that statement as derogatory, untrue and defamatory and maintains it was made directly to her in front of other staff.106 Ground 4 - Double standards [103] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes failed to consider, or properly consider, evidence in support of her contention that she had been subject to double standards in the THHS's interactions with her.107 Her examples engage Appendices 5, 14, 29, 40, 42 and 43. 100 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 101 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 102 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4 (footnote 34). 103 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4 (footnote 39). 104 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 105 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 106 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 107 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5. -- 21 of 39 -- 22 Ground 5 - Pattern of behaviour by Ms Irving and Ms Davies [104] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes, in upholding Ms Cotter's decision in relation to alleged bullying and intimidatory conduct by Ms Irving, Ms Davies and other health professionals, failed to consider her grievances on the balance of probabilities, particularly with regard to the number of examples of allegedly discriminatory treatment, and in light of the witness statements of Ms Hosking and Ms Rooker.108 She submits that Professor Keyes did not examine Ms Irving's conduct in totality and that there were repeated attempts by Ms Irving to apply biased and discriminatory processes.109 [105] The specific examples cited under Ground 5 include Appendix 1, alleged harassment for not following instructions about a matter that never reached Ms Bokhoree, and Appendices 5 and 8, said to disclose an inconsistency between Ms Davies' directive not to communicate directly with the Vascular Doctors and Ms Irving's subsequent instruction to do so.110 Ground 6 - Limited scope of review [106] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes' repeated statement that his review was limited to what she had raised in her request for internal review was unfair, because in her appeal to the COO she had requested a "thorough and comprehensive review of all matters", including those matters raised in the original grievance and not addressed by Ms Cotter.111 Relief sought [107] Ms Bokhoree seeks orders that the appeal be accepted, that the decisions made by Professor Keyes in relation to the 26 appendices in issue be set aside, and that the Commission make a substituted decision in relation to those grievances or, in the alternative, direct that a new review or investigation be conducted by such entity as the Commission sees fit.112 108 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5. 109 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5. 110 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5. 111 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5, quoting Grievance Appeal to COO, 3. 112 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5. -- 22 of 39 -- 23 Respondent's submissions [108] The Respondent contends that Ms Bokhoree's grounds of appeal reflect a misunderstanding of two related propositions. The first is that the internal review was not a rehearing of the grievance but an inquiry into whether Ms Cotter's decision was fair and reasonable. The second is that the appeal to this Commission is itself not conducted by way of rehearing but instead by way of a review of Professor Keyes' decision and the associated decision-making processes.113 [109] The Respondent submits that Ms Bokhoree's grounds of appeal refer back to the grievance itself, and in particular to Appendices 1-6, 8-16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 29, 33-35, 40, 42 and 43, with the result that her appeal does not engage with Professor Keyes' reasoning but instead with the underlying merits as she perceives them.114 [110] The Respondent advances four overarching propositions in support of its position that the Decision was fair and reasonable.115 [111] First, that Ms Bokhoree was afforded procedural fairness at all times, including being provided with an extension of time to collate her supporting material, after which she advised that she would rely on the extensive attachments already provided.116 [112] Second, that the findings made by Professor Keyes were open and available to him on the material.117 [113] Third, that in making the Decision Professor Keyes complied with the Directive, the PS Act, the Award and relevant policies and procedures of the THHS.118 [114] Fourth, that Professor Keyes considered the material provided by Ms Bokhoree, including the Award and the PS Code.119 [115] The Respondent further submits that Professor Keyes prepared a detailed 54-page response in accordance with his obligations as a decision-maker, in which he identified the grounds on which Ms Bokhoree had applied for an internal review, outlined the action taken to review the Decision, confirmed the material taken into consideration, set out his reasons, identified the action proposed as a result of the internal review and provided Ms Bokhoree with details of avenues for external appeal.120 113 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [12]; IR Act s 562B(2) (n 3); Goodall (n 7). 114 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [12]. 115 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [14]. 116 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](a). 117 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](b). 118 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](c). 119 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](d). 120 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [17]. -- 23 of 39 -- 24 [116] The Respondent's specific responses to Ms Bokhoree's Grounds of Appeal are summarised below: • That Professor Keyes confirmed Ms Cotter's decisions on Appendices 1-6, 8- 16, 18, 20, 26, 27, 29, 33-35 and 40 as fair and reasonable for the reasons provided in the Decision;121 • In relation to the OHO concerns raised in Appendix 3, the Respondent submits that Professor Keyes provided reasons why he was not prepared to consider those allegations, having regard to cl 6.1(k) of the Directive;122 • In response to the suspension and discipline processes raised in Appendices 4 and 5 (in respect of PA&D discussions) and Appendices 42 and 43, the Respondent submits that Professor Keyes provided reasons why he was not prepared to consider those allegations, having regard to s 195(3A)(b) of the PS Act and cl 6.1(b) of the Directive;123 • In relation to the file note matters raised in Appendices 10 and 11, the Respondent submits that the signing of a file note that is a record of conversation is not an unreasonable request and cannot be construed as workplace bullying or intimidation, even though Ms Bokhoree was frustrated;124 • In response to the text message on a day off raised in Appendix 13, the Respondent submits that the communication does not constitute harassment, since it is not unreasonable for a manager to confirm an employee's attendance at a meeting;125 • In relation to Appendices 6, 15, 16, 34 and 35, the Respondent submits that the grievance did not include sufficient information to permit Ms Cotter to take any other appropriate action other than what was set out in her response;126 • In response to Ms Bokhoree's concerns about a number of allegations, including those raised in Appendices 4, 6-16, 20, 26 and 27, the Respondent submits that Professor Keyes properly noted that the allegations had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct or behaviour; 127 121 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](a). 122 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](b), footnote 8. 123 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](c), footnotes 9-10. 124 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](d). 125 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](e). 126 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](f). 127 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](g). -- 24 of 39 -- 25 • In relation to Appendix 35, the Respondent submits that Professor Keyes properly noted that several allegations had previously been dealt with and that Ms Bokhoree had not pursued an internal review or appeal at the time;128 • In response to Appendix 29, the Respondent submits that confusion around leave arrangements appears to have been worked out between Ms Bokhoree and Ms Irving;129 and • The Respondent submits that the Commission can be satisfied, having regard to Professor Keyes' decision, that appropriate consideration was given to the matters raised by Ms Bokhoree in her grievance and her request for an internal review.130 [117] No reply submissions were filed by Ms Bokhoree. Consideration [118] The question for determination in this appeal is whether Professor Keyes' decision was fair and reasonable on the materials before him at the time.131 That task does not extend to reviewing the underlying conduct that gave rise to the grievance, nor to conducting a fresh Stage 2 review.132 [119] Ms Bokhoree's six grounds of appeal give rise to eight sub-issues for consideration, namely: Issue 1- Limited scope of review [120] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to limit his review to the matters Ms Bokhoree raised in her request for internal review, rather than undertake a fresh and comprehensive consideration of all matters raised in the original grievance? Issue 2 - Pattern of behaviour [121] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to address each appendix individually rather than in aggregate as evidence of a "pattern of behaviour" by Ms Irving and Ms Davies? 128 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](h). 129 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](i). 130 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [19]. 131 IR Act s 562B(3) (n 3); Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 9.2(d). 132 IR Act s 562B(3) (n 3); Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74) cl 9.2(d). -- 25 of 39 -- 26 Issue 3 - Suspension and discipline exclusions [122] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to decline to consider the matters raised in Appendices 3, 4 (in part), 42 and 43 on the basis that they fell within the disciplinary process or had already been determined by the COO, having regard to cl 6.1(b) of the Directive, which: (a) excludes decisions made under Chapter 6, Part 2 of the PS Act relating to discipline; cl 6.1(h) of the Directive; (b) excludes matters subject to a current internal or external review; and (c) confirms the appeal exclusions in s 195(3A)(b) of the PS Act. Issue 4 - Recruitment exclusion [123] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to decline to consider the recruitment- related matters raised in Appendix 35, on the basis that those matters had appeal rights under Appeals Directive 07/20 which Ms Bokhoree had not exercised, having regard to cl 6.1(c) of the Directive? Issue 5 -Timeliness findings [124] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to uphold Ms Cotter's findings that a number of grievances had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct, relevantly in Appendices 5, 9, 10, 11 and 13, having regard to cl 8.1 of the Directive? -- 26 of 39 -- 27 Issue 6 - Adequacy of consideration of evidence [125] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to conclude on the merits, in respect of those appendices on which he made findings, that Ms Cotter's decisions were fair and reasonable, having regard to: (a) the witness statements of Ms Hosking and Ms Rooker (Annexure PB-5) said to be relevant to Appendices 1, 16, 17 and 20; (b) the email and other documentary evidence concerning Dr Ingle, Dr Gagun, the Vascular Team and Registrar Zaine relied on in Appendices 2, 5, 8, 11 and 12; (c) the recorded statement attributed to Ms Irving as to Ms Bokhoree being "petty" in Appendix 15; and (d) the documentary evidence concerning Ms Irving's request that Ms Bokhoree contact patients regarding medication cessations and tailor insulin doses in Appendix 40? Issue 7 - File note and management correspondence findings [126] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to conclude that the request that Ms Bokhoree sign a file note as a record of conversation, the follow-up correspondence from Ms Cox and Ms Irving's text message confirming attendance at a planned meeting, did not constitute bullying, harassment or intimidation, in connection with Appendices 8 to 12 and 13? Issue 8 - Compliance with the Award and the PS Code of Conduct [127] Was it fair and reasonable for Professor Keyes to conclude that Ms Cotter's Stage 1 process complied with cll 7.2(a) and 7.2(c)(ii) of the Award and cll 2.1(c) and 2.2(a) of the PS Code, having regard to Ms Bokhoree's specific concerns about the way in which her grievances about hospital processes, service and communication were addressed? [128] I will now address each of these issues in turn. -- 27 of 39 -- 28 Issue 1 - Limited scope of review [129] Ms Bokhoree's submission is that Professor Keyes' repeated statements that his review was limited to what she had raised in her request for internal review was unfair, because in her appeal to Mr Eaton she had requested a "thorough and comprehensive review of all matters", including those raised in the original grievance and not addressed by Ms Cotter.133 The Respondent's position is that Professor Keyes complied with the Directive.134 [130] The relevant framework lies in cll 9.2(b) and 9.2(d) of the Directive. Clause 9.2(b)(ii) requires a request for internal review to clearly state the reasons for dissatisfaction with the Stage 1 decision and not merely assert that it was unfair and unreasonable. Clause 9.2(d) provides that the chief executive or delegate is to determine whether the decision made through local action was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.135 [131] Read together, those clauses structure the internal review as a review of the Stage 1 decision, framed by the reasons for dissatisfaction the employee has identified in the internal review request. Clause 9.2(b)(ii) places the onus on the employee to articulate their reasons, distinct from a bare assertion of unfairness. Clause 9.2(d) directs the reviewer to the question of whether the Stage 1 decision was fair and reasonable, and not to conduct a fresh and comprehensive consideration of every matter that featured in the original grievance. [132] In my view, the Directive did not require Professor Keyes to undertake a comprehensive re-investigation of the original grievance. To require otherwise would render cl 9.2(b)(ii) ineffective. It would also sit uneasily with the 14-day timeframe imposed by cl 9.2(f) for completion of the Stage 2 review,136 a timeframe predicated on the review being shaped by the reasons given by the employee rather than a renewed open-ended inquiry. [133] Professor Keyes recorded in detail the materials he had considered, including the grievance and the 43 appendices.137 He dealt with the procedural complaints raised in the review request before turning to the appendices.138 Ms Bokhoree has not identified any specific matter raised in her original grievance and addressed by Ms Cotter that Professor Keyes failed to consider when it was raised again in the internal review request. [134] The complaint that Professor Keyes ought to have approached the review more broadly is, in substance, a complaint about how the Directive operates. It was reasonably open to Professor Keyes to interpret cll 9.2(b)(ii) and 9.2(d) as he did. 133 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5, quoting Grievance Appeal to the COO, 3. 134 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), 16(c). 135 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 9.2(d). 136 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 9.2(f). 137 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 2. 138 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 2. -- 28 of 39 -- 29 Issue 2 - Pattern of behaviour [135] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes failed to consider Ms Irving's conduct "in totality", in that he should have viewed the discrete appendices in aggregate as evidence of a pattern of behaviour rather than addressing each on its individual facts.139 The Respondent's position is that the findings made were open and available on the material.140 [136] Clause 9.2(d) directs the reviewer to determine whether the decision made through local action was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.141 The decision through local action, being Ms Cotter's decision, addressed each appendix on its individual facts.142 The structure of the Stage 2 review followed the structure of the Stage 1 decision under review. [137] Nothing in the Directive obliged Professor Keyes to abandon an appendix-by-appendix examination of Ms Cotter's reasoning in favour of an aggregated assessment of a 'pattern of behaviour' that Ms Cotter herself had not undertaken. Ms Bokhoree's submission, in effect, is that Professor Keyes should have done at Stage 2 what she did not invite Ms Cotter to do at Stage 1. That is, to make a fresh assessment of the cumulative effect of the conduct alleged. That is not the Stage 2 task. [138] In any event, Professor Keyes did consider the appendices alongside one another at points in his reasoning. He noted in several places that he had considered an appendix in his response to others. His treatment of Appendices 26 and 27 by reference to his analysis of Appendices 20, 24 and 25 is a clear example.143 Issue 3 - Suspension and discipline exclusions [139] Ms Bokhoree argues that Professor Keyes' exclusion of Appendices 3, 4 (in part), 42 and 43 on jurisdictional grounds was unfair.144 The Respondent's case is that the exclusions were fair and reasonable, having regard to s 195(3A)(b) of the PS Act and cl 6.1(b) of the Directive.145 139 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 5. 140 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](b). 141 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 9.2(d). 142 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 3-52. 143 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 28-29. 144 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4, footnote 39. 145 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](c), footnote 10. -- 29 of 39 -- 30 [140] Clause 6.1(b) of the Directive provides that a decision made under chapter 6, part 2 of the PS Act relating to discipline cannot be the subject of a grievance.146 Clause 6.1(h) provides that an investigation, suspension or discipline process that is the subject of a current internal or external review under the PS Act and a relevant Directive, cannot be the subject of a grievance.147 Section 195(3A)(b) of the PS Act permits an employee aggrieved by a discipline-finding decision under s 187 to lodge a public service appeal directly without using the grievance mechanism. [141] On the chronology established in the Background of these reasons, Ms Bokhoree had been suspended from duty,148 placed on alternative duties,149 issued a First Show Cause Notice150 and provided her response to that notice on the same day she lodged her grievance.151 The discipline process was placed on hold pending the internal review,152 confirming that it remained alive throughout the period the grievance was being processed. [142] Each of Appendices 3, 4 (in part), 42 and 43 raises matters intertwined with the discipline process or with the events that gave rise to it. Appendix 3 raises the alleged reprisal effect of Ms Bokhoree's suspension after she had contacted the OHO. Professor Keyes recorded that the issues raised had been dealt with by Mr Eaton in 2021, that Ms Bokhoree had the opportunity to appeal Mr Eaton's findings and had not done so, and that he would not review issues associated with the suspension or discipline matters.153 [143] Appendix 4 addresses among other matters, Ms Bokhoree's attendance at PA&D discussions, which Professor Keyes noted was the subject of the discipline process.154 I accept he considered the parts of Appendix 4 that did not relate to the discipline process, including the alleged fabrication by Dr White and Dr Velu. He concluded those issues had been addressed and closed due to insufficient evidence.155 [144] Appendices 42 and 43 address the suspension itself and the receipt of allegations during Ms Bokhoree's recreation leave.156 in this respect, Professor Keyes determined he would not be reviewing issues in respect of Ms Bokhoree's suspension or discipline.157 146 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 6.1(b). 147 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 6.1(h). 148 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [1]. 149 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [3]. 150 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [4]. 151 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [5]-[6]. 152 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [25], Annexure 1C (email of 27 June 2022). 153 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5. 154 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5. 155 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5-6. 156 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 52. 157 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 52. -- 30 of 39 -- 31 [145] In my view, the exclusions were fair and reasonable. First, the discipline process had commenced prior to the time the grievance was lodged. The status quo had been maintained, and the discipline process was on hold pending the finalisation of the grievance process.158 The proper vehicle for challenging a suspension or discipline outcome is an appeal under the disciplinary regime in Chapter 6, Part 2 of the PS Act, not a grievance. [146] The structure of the PS Act and Directive clearly contemplates that disciplinary, or suspension matters travel through their own processes. It seems to me that this is a deliberate legislative choice to keep discipline appeals separate from the grievance pathway. Reading cll 6.1(b) and 6.1(h) together with s 195(3A) of the PS Act, the proper mechanism for challenging the discipline process is the discipline appeal pathway, not the grievance process. [147] Professor Keyes' reasons for the exclusion at Appendix 3 went somewhat further. He relied on the fact that Mr Eaton had previously addressed the OHO matters and that Ms Bokhoree had not appealed the outcome.159 The Respondent's submissions characterise this as a cl 6.1(k) point, an Ombudsman complaint exclusion.160 That characterisation does not accurately reflect what Professor Keyes recorded in his decision letter. He did not exclude the matter because it was the subject of an Ombudsman investigation. Instead, he observed that it had previously been addressed by Mr Eaton, that an appeal pathway had been available and not taken and that the matter was therefore closed.161 [148] That reasoning is consistent with the principle reflected in cl 6.1(h), namely that a process that is, or has been, the subject of internal or external review is not to be reopened by way of a fresh grievance. In my view, Professor Keyes' reasoning on Appendix 3 was open and available to him on the materials. [149] For these reasons, it was open to Professor Keyes to decline to consider matters falling within cll 6.1(b) and 6.1(h) of the Directive. Furthermore, his exclusions on Appendices 3, 4 (PA&D part), 42 and 43 were fair and reasonable. 158 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1C (email of 27 June 2022). 159 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5. 160 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](b), footnote 8. 161 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 5. -- 31 of 39 -- 32 Issue 4 - Recruitment exclusion [150] Ms Bokhoree's complaint within Appendix 35 included that she had faced career stagnation as a reprisal and that Ms Irving had provided a negative referee report in connection with recruitment processes in which she had unsuccessfully participated.162 Professor Keyes recorded Ms Cotter's findings on the merit principle and on Ms Irving's panel chair training. He added that the recruitment and selection processes referred to had appeal rights, observing that Ms Bokhoree had not lodged an appeal under Directive 07/20.163 [151] Clause 6.1(c) of the Directive provides that a decision relating to the recruitment or selection of a public service employee cannot be the subject of an individual employee grievance.164 To the extent Appendix 35 sought to challenge specific recruitment decisions, it fell within cl 6.1(c) and could not properly form the basis of a grievance. Ms Bokhoree has not argued otherwise on this appeal, nor has she identified any aspect of Professor Keyes' reasoning on Appendix 35 that she contends was defective. [152] In my view, Professor Keyes' confirmation of Ms Cotter's decision in respect of Appendix 35 was fair and reasonable. Issue 5 - Timeliness findings [153] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes unfairly upheld Ms Cotter's findings that several grievances were not raised within an appropriate period of time.165 She contends those matters were nevertheless relevant to establishing a pattern of behaviour.166 The Respondent submits that Professor Keyes properly noted that several allegations had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct.167 [154] Clause 8.1 of the Directive provides that employees are required to ensure that individual employee grievances are submitted as soon as reasonably possible after the relevant administrative decision, alleged conduct or alleged behaviour has occurred.168 This is not an optional obligation. [155] Professor Keyes upheld Ms Cotter's timeliness findings in respect of several appendices.169 162 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 41-42. 163 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 42-43. 164 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 6.1(c). 165 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 166 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 167 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](g). 168 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 8.1. 169 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 6 – Appendix 5 (the interaction occurring 6 August 2020 and PA&D on 21 August 2020); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 9 – Appendix 9 (the interaction on 16 July 2021); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 10 – Appendix 10 (16 to 22 July 2021); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 11 – Appendix 11 (6 to 22 July 2021); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 13-14 – Appendix 13 (5 May 2021); Professor -- 32 of 39 -- 33 [156] Each of those events occurred between approximately seven and 19 months before the grievance was lodged. The phrase "as soon as reasonably possible" in cl 8.1 is broad enough to allow for individual cases of delay where there is good reason. Ms Bokhoree's submission, however, is not that there was good reason for the delay, but that the conduct should be considered notwithstanding the delay because it formed part of a pattern. That submission misconstrues cl 8.1. [157] Timeliness is a threshold requirement on the employee. A grievance lodged outside that timeframe may still be addressed if there is sufficient reason, but it is the employee who bears the responsibility to identify any such reason. [158] On the materials before Professor Keyes, no reason for the delay had been advanced by Ms Bokhoree. He was, in my view, entitled to uphold Ms Cotter's timeliness findings. Issue 6 - Adequacy of consideration of evidence [159] Ms Bokhoree's submissions under Ground 3 catalogues 11 separate examples in which she submits Professor Keyes failed to consider, or properly consider, supporting evidence she had submitted.170 The Respondent's position is that Professor Keyes considered the material provided, including the Award and the PS Code171 and contends that the 54- page response identifies the material taken into consideration and the reasons.172 [160] Clause 9.2(d) of the Directive requires the chief executive or delegate to determine whether the Stage 1 decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.173 Clause 9.2(h) requires the written decision to outline the action taken to review the Stage 1 decision and the reasons for the decision.174 What is required is that the reviewer properly turn their mind to the material and that the reasons reflect that engagement. [161] Professor Keyes opened his decision by stating that, while he might not have mentioned every document and piece of information specifically contained in the grievance, he had fully and carefully considered everything Ms Bokhoree had provided.175 The legislation, instruments and policies he had considered were then listed, including the relevant Award, the PS Code and Directive 11/20.176 The grievance, the 43 appendices and Ms Cotter's letter were also listed.177 Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 14-15 – Appendix 14 (events between February and August 2021); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 16-17 – Appendix 15 (6 May 2021); Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 19 – Appendix 17 (23 March 2021). 170 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 4. 171 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](d). 172 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [17]. 173 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 9.2(d). 174 Individual Employee Grievance Directive (11/20) (n 74), cl 9.2(h). 175 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1. 176 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1-2. 177 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 2. -- 33 of 39 -- 34 [162] For each of the appendices on appeal, Professor Keyes set out what Ms Bokhoree had said, what Ms Cotter had decided, and in most cases his own reasoning explaining why Ms Cotter's decision was fair and reasonable.178 [163] As to the alleged conduct of Drs Ingle, Gagun, White, Velu and Registrar Zaine, raised across Appendices 2, 5, 8, 11 and 12, those matters concern the clinical conduct of medical practitioners. Having regard to the materials relied on, it seems to me the proper forum is a clinical complaints framework, not the individual employee grievance system.179 [164] Professor Keyes considered the appendices to the extent they bore on Ms Bokhoree's grievances and, in my view, was not required to make findings on the underlying clinical conduct. [165] As to the alleged statement that Ms Bokhoree was being "petty", raised in Appendix 15, Professor Keyes recorded Ms Cotter's finding that Ms Irving was not being critical of any staff member, but was instead attempting to address the concerns of several colleagues and bring the matter to a resolution.180 Ms Cotter concluded that Ms Irving was not intentionally seeking to harass or humiliate Ms Bokhoree. That is a finding of fact about the meaning and context of the words, which it was open to the decision-maker to make. [166] Professor Keyes also noted the passage of time and the absence of further statements capable of substantiating the allegation. Although Ms Bokhoree disagreed with that characterisation, in my view, it was open to Professor Keyes to conclude that Ms Cotter's decision was fair and reasonable. It was also open to Professor Keyes to conclude that the grievance had not been submitted as soon as reasonably possible.181 [167] In relation to the medication and insulin issues raised in Appendix 40, Professor Keyes set out an extensive chronology of correspondence between Ms Bokhoree, Ms Irving and the Vascular team.182 He addressed Ms Cotter's findings on the proper management of PA&D processes and on Ms Irving's role and responsibilities.183 178 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 3-52. 179 See paragraph [89] above. 180 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 16. 181 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 16-17. 182 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 49-50. 183 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 50. -- 34 of 39 -- 35 [168] In assessing the reasons of the decision-maker on this ground of appeal, I am also guided by what was said in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang,184 where the High Court cited with approval a passage from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd,185 to the effect that, when dealing with the reasons of an administrative decision-maker, these were "…not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error".186 [169] Whether Professor Keyes' findings were correct in every detail is not the test on review. What is required is that the reasoning be open and available on the material. [170] The cumulative effect is that Professor Keyes engaged with the material put forward by Ms Bokhoree in a manner that satisfied cl 9.2(h) of the Directive. [171] Ms Bokhoree's complaint amounts, in many respects, to the contention that Professor Keyes should have weighed the evidence differently and reached different conclusions on the merits. [172] As Industrial Commissioner Dwyer observed in Monavvari v Queensland (Queensland Health, eHealth),187 if an Appellant, in this case Ms Bokhoree, wished to challenge the veracity of the conclusions made by the decision-maker, then the Appellant held the onus to provide submissions and produce evidence to contradict them.188 [173] Nothing in Ms Bokhoree's submissions and filed materials on this appeal ground justifies disturbing the Decision. Issue 7 - File note and management correspondence findings [174] Ms Bokhoree submits that Professor Keyes wrongly accepted that the request that she sign a file note as a record of conversation, the follow-up correspondence from Ms Cox and Ms Irving's text message confirming attendance at a meeting, did not constitute bullying, harassment or intimidation.189 The Respondent submits that signing a file note that is a record of conversation is not an unreasonable request and cannot be construed as workplace bullying or intimidation,190 and further, that contact by text message on a day off does not constitute harassment.191 184 (1996) 185 CLR 259, [30]. 185 (1993) 43 FCR 280 ('Collector of Customs'), 286-287. 186 Collector of Customs (n 185), 287, cited in Nuske v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2023] QIRC 199, [97]. 187 [2020] QIRC 232 ('Monavvari'). 188Monavvari (n 187), [55]. 189 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 2, 4. 190 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](d). 191 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [18](e). -- 35 of 39 -- 36 [175] In relation to Appendix 9, which deals with the file note grievance, Professor Keyes recorded that on 16 July 2021 Ms Bokhoree had sent an email to the Vascular team that included the remarks "is this a joke?" and "one more stuff up from Vascular and I will be walking out from this place". He recorded that she had then met with Ms Cox and acknowledged at that meeting that her communication and the tone she adopted in emails to the Vascular team were not in line with the PS Code.192 [176] Ms Cox subsequently followed up the unsigned file note on 20 July 2021 requesting that Ms Bokhoree make amendments before returning a signed copy by 22 July 2021.193 Ms Bokhoree returned the file note on 22 July 2021 with her additional comments.194 On those facts, which are uncontested, I am satisfied it was reasonably open to Professor Keyes to conclude that the request to sign a file note as a record of conversation was not unreasonable.195 [177] On Appendices 10 and 11, Professor Keyes considered the same factual matrix and reached the same conclusion. It is my view that the follow-up correspondence was reasonable management action. A request that an employee sign a file note as a record of conversation is not unreasonable, notwithstanding any irritation on Ms Bokhoree's part.196 [178] Professor Keyes recorded that Ms Irving had; (a) sent a text message seeking confirmation that Ms Bokhoree had organised a union representative for a planned meeting on the following day; (b) that this was the fourth attempted meeting after three previous unsuccessful attempts; and (c) that the message did not require Ms Bokhoree to perform work.197 [179] In my view, Professor Keyes' conclusion that confirming an employee's attendance at a meeting by text message, on a day off does not constitute harassment, was reasonably open to him on those facts.198 192 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 9. 193 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 10. 194 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 10. 195 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 9-10. 196 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 10-11. 197 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 13. 198 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 13-14. -- 36 of 39 -- 37 [180] Ms Bokhoree's submissions on this issue are essentially that the conduct felt harassing to her. That is acknowledged. Professor Keyes himself recorded that he understood she was frustrated.199 However, the subjective experience of management correspondence as harassing does not, without more, render it unreasonable, harassing or intimidating. On the materials before him, Professor Keyes was entitled to conclude that the conduct in question did not constitute any of those things. Issue 8 - Compliance with the Award and Code of Conduct [181] Ms Bokhoree's case on Ground 1 is that Ms Cotter, and in turn Professor Keyes, failed to comply with cll 7.2(a) and 7.2(c)(ii) of the Award and cll 2.1(c) and 2.2(a) of the PS Code.200 The Respondent's position is that Professor Keyes complied with the Directive, the PS Act, the Award and the PS Code.201 [182] Clause 7.2(a) of the Award provides that the objectives of the grievance procedure are to promote the prompt resolution of grievances by consultation, co-operation and discussion, and further, that the procedure applies to all industrial matters within the meaning of the IR Act.202 [183] Clause 7.2(c)(ii) requires the employer to ensure that the grievance is investigated in a thorough, fair and impartial manner.203 Clauses 2.1(c) and 2.2(a) of the PS Code provide that public service agencies have a responsibility to treat complaints from clients and the community seriously, to respond to constructive feedback as an opportunity for improvement and to listen and respond to issues and concerns raised by individuals.204 [184] On the materials before Professor Keyes, the grievance, comprising 15 pages of a cover letter, 132 pages of appendices and 365 pages of supporting documents was the subject of approximately ten weeks of consideration at Stage 1,205 with timeframe extensions communicated to and accepted by Ms Bokhoree.206 199 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 10. 200 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1-2. 201 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), [16](c)-(d). 202 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1, quoting the Nurses and Midwives (Queensland Health) Award – State 2015, cl 7.2(a). 203 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1, quoting the Nurses and Midwives (Queensland Health) Award – State 2015, cl 7.2(c)(ii). 204 Applicant's Submissions (n 24), 1-2. 205 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [9]-[12]. 206 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [9]-[11]. -- 37 of 39 -- 38 [185] Ms Cotter's Stage 1 decision was a 33-page response addressing each of the 43 appendices.207 Professor Keyes' Stage 2 decision was a 54-page response addressing the matters Ms Bokhoree had raised in her internal review request and reviewing each of the appendices.208 He expressly listed the Award and the PS Code among the instruments he had considered.209 [186] It seems to me that Ms Bokhoree's grievance had been the subject of substantial investigation, with detailed reasons provided. The objection that the THHS did not engage in "consultation, co-operation and discussion", in the sense Ms Bokhoree advances it, appears to be in substance a complaint that the agency did not agree with her position. That is not what cl 7.2(a) requires. [187] As to the PS Code provisions, cll 2.1(c) and 2.2(a) impose obligations on agencies in respect of complaints. Both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 processes involved a careful written decision addressing each appendix with reasons. That the agency reached different conclusions from Ms Bokhoree does not mean that her complaints were not taken seriously or that the agency failed to listen and respond to the issues and concerns she raised. Conclusion [188] The issue for determination in this appeal was whether Professor Keyes' decision was fair and reasonable on the materials before him. For the reasons given on each of the issues identified, I consider the decision was fair and reasonable. [189] Professor Keyes correctly understood his task as that prescribed by cl 9.2(d) of the Directive.210 The materials he considered were set out in detail. He addressed Ms Bokhoree's procedural complaints before turning to the substantive grounds.211 He worked through each of the 43 appendices, summarising Ms Bokhoree's position and Ms Cotter's decision. He reached a reasoned conclusion in relation to the grievances.212 Where appendices fell within the matters excluded from the grievance pathway by cll 6.1(b), 6.1(c) or 6.1(h) of the Directive, proper reasons for the exclusion were provided. Where grievances had not been lodged as soon as reasonably possible after the conduct complained of, it was open to Professor Keyes to uphold Ms Cotter's timeliness findings under cl 8.1. [190] Ms Bokhoree's submissions and accompanying annexures, while extensive, do not meaningfully engage with Professor Keyes' reasoning so much as restate her dissatisfaction with the underlying conclusions. None of her six grounds or the materials relied on within her submissions disclose a defect in his reasoning that would justify the Commission disturbing the Decision. 207 Respondent's Submissions (n 1), Annexure 1, [12]. 208 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1-53. 209 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1-2. 210 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1. 211 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 2. 212 Professor Keyes Stage 2 Internal Review Decision (n 12), 1-53. -- 38 of 39 -- 39 [191] It follows that the appropriate order under s 562C(1) of the IR Act is to confirm the decision appealed against. Order [192] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following order: Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision of Professor Kieran Keyes, Health Service Chief Executive, Townsville Hospital and Health Service, is confirmed. -- 39 of 39 --