Duffy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 106

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Duffy v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 106 PARTIES: Duffy, Angela (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/211 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – appeal against a promotion decision DELIVERED ON: 2 April 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Dwyer IC On the papers ORDERS: The promotion decision is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against promotion decision – where appellant applied for higher classification position – where appellant was shortlisted and interviewed – where appellant was emailed about the outcome while overseas – where appellant alleges selection panel was composed incorrectly – where appellant alleges referees for successful applicant were inadequately checked – where appellant alleges recruitment and selection process was not fair and transparent – decision confirmed. LEGISLATION: Appeals (Directive 04/23) -- 1 of 19 -- 2 CASES: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562B(3), 562B(4)(b), s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 44, 45, 84(2), 131(1)(e), 133(e) Recruitment and selection (Directive 07/23) Recruitment and selection – Human Resources Policy B1 (QH-POL-212) Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10 Ehrlich v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 209 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018) Reasons for Decision Background [1] Dr Angela Duffy ('Dr Duffy') is substantively employed in the role of Senior Medical Laboratory Scientist (HP4) with Pathology Queensland ('PQ'), Clinical Support Queensland ('CSQ'), the Department of Health ('DoH') at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital ('RBWH'). [2] In February 2022, Dr Duffy successfully applied to work in the Haematology Molecular Unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital ('PAH') on a temporary basis to cover planned leave by the substantive employee. This temporary arrangement has been repeatedly renewed.1 [3] In or around the beginning of 2025, Dr Duffy began acting in a leadership role in the PAH Haematology Molecular Unit. Her secondment to this role ended on 29 August 2025.2 [4] In March 2025, a Business Case for Change proposed realignment of the PAH Haematology Molecular Unit to the PQ Genomics Discipline based out of the RBWH. The feedback from affected employees and relevant unions in response to the Business 1 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025. 2 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025. -- 2 of 19 -- 3 Case for Change expressed the need for onsite line management for the Haematology Molecular Unit that would continue to operate out of the PAH. [5] To address the feedback, the full-time Senior Scientist (HP4) role from within the Genomics Discipline was upgraded to a Supervising Scientist (HP5) role for the Haematology Molecular Unit at the PAH. The role was to perform onsite line management and report directly to the Principle Chief Scientist of Genomics.3 [6] Consequently, the position of Health Practitioner Level 5 (HP5) Supervising Scientist (reference QLD/CSQ648281) ('the position') within PQ, CSQ, DoH, Queensland Health ('QH') ('the respondent') at the PAH was approved. The position was advertised in a closed merit process for 15 calendar days until 25 July 2025.4 The limited advertising process resulted in two applicants. [7] Dr Duffy applied for the position, along with one other candidate ('the second applicant'). Both were shortlisted and interviewed for the position on 11 August 2025. [8] The recruitment panel consisted of four members:5 • Panel Chair: A Principal Chief Scientist, Genomics, PQ, CSQ; • Panel Member 1: an Advanced Scientist, Cytogenetics, PQ, CSQ; • Panel Member 2: an Acting State Director, Haematology, PQ, CSQ, DoH; and • Panel Member 3: an Acting Director of Genomics, Office of Research and Innovation. [9] On 29 August 2025, Dr Duffy commenced recreational leave.6 By the time she departed for her overseas holiday, Dr Duffy had not been notified about the outcome of her application for the position. [10] On 1 September 2025, the delegate for the recruitment decision ('the decision maker') approved the selection report which appointed the second applicant to the position. [11] On 3 September 2025, the Panel Chair advised Dr Duffy via email correspondence that her application for the position had not been successful. The email stated as follows:7 Hi Angela, Apologies for emailing while you are on vacation. We regret to inform you that you were not successful for the HP5 position in molecular haematology, PAH. 3 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, attachment 1 page 12. 4 Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025 [5]. 5 Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025 [8]. 6 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025; Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025 [20]. 7 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, attachment 5. -- 3 of 19 -- 4 I would have preferred to have spoken to you but didn’t want to disturb you while you were on holidays. If you have a spare moment before you return please let me know and I can call. Otherwise, I can meet you in person after you return and provide you with detailed feedback. … (Emphasis added) [12] On 8 September 2025, the Panel Chair sent a discipline-wide email advising that the second applicant was successful in recruitment to the position.8 [13] Dr Duffy returned from her overseas holiday on 9 September 2025.9 [14] On 16 September 2025 Dr Duffy forwarded her request for a review of the recruitment and selection process to the decision maker's line manager.10 Along with the request, Dr Duffy raised a number of concerns about the recruitment and selection process. In brief, her concerns were that:11 (a) the panel did not have an appropriate gender balance nor the appropriate experience; (b) the panel did not contact appropriate referees when appointing the second applicant; (c) the process was not fair and transparent because she was not verbally informed of the outcome; and (d) specific and constructive feedback was not provided to her by a panel member in a timely manner. [15] The decision maker responded to Dr Duffy's concerns on 30 September 2025:12 (a) it was not possible to achieve a gender balance where a number of potential panel members were approached and declined to participate. Further, panel members that did participate in the recruitment and selection process for the position were considered to have possessed the appropriate level of expertise and experience; 8 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, attachment 6. 9 The exact date of Dr Duffy's return to work following recreational leave is unknown. In the Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025, it is stipulated that Dr Duffy was on leave until 27 September 2025. In her reply submissions filed 5 January 2026, Dr Duffy submits that she was on leave for 10 workdays, thus returning 15 September 2025. 10 Dr Duffy alleges she first formally requested feedback on 10 September 2025 but does not provide any evidence of the formal request in her submissions. 11 Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025, attachment 4. 12 Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025, attachment 5. -- 4 of 19 -- 5 (b) the selection report was not completed and approved until after Dr Duffy went on leave. The outcome of her application was communicated to her via email because she was on leave; (c) the Panel Chair provided Dr Duffy written feedback on 23 September 2025; and (d) the decision maker concluded: Although I appreciate that the outcome of this recruitment process is not as you would have hoped, I consider that on balance the Queensland Health Recruitment and Selection Human Resources Policy was complied with, that the outcome was just and that the recruitment process selected the applicant who was the 'best fit for the role'. [16] Dr Duffy filed a Notice of Appeal in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') on 10 October 2025, pursuant to chapter 3 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'). Dr Duffy seeks to appeal the decision to appoint the second applicant to the position (‘the decision’). [17] The appeal grounds relied upon by Dr Duffy mirror the first three concerns she raised in her email correspondence to the respondent on 16 September 2025. I elaborate on those grounds and address them, below. Nature of appeal [18] Under Chapter 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act'), the role of the Commission is to review the decision appealed against.13 The IR Act does not define the term 'review'. The term 'review' will take its meaning from the context in which it appears.14 [19] An appeal under Chapter 11 of the IR Act is not a rehearing of the matter,15 but rather, it is a review of the decision and the decision-making process.16 The purpose of such an appeal is to have the Commission decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.17 [20] Further, in respect of an appeal against a promotion decision, the Commission may take into account other evidence that was not before a decision maker at the time a decision was made if the Commission considers it appropriate.18 13 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B. 14 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10. 15 Goodall v State of Queensland (Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5. 16 Ibid. 17 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3). 18 Ibid s 562B(4)(b). -- 5 of 19 -- 6 What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make? [21] In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Commission may: (a) confirm the decision appealed against; or (b) for an appeal against a promotion decision—set the decision aside, and return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions permitted under a directive made by the Public Sector Commissioner that the commission considers appropriate. [22] Clause 18.2 of the Appeals (Directive 04/23) ('the Appeals Directive') details the types of directions the Commission may issue. Relevant legislative provisions [23] Relevantly, s 44 of the PS Act sets out the principles that must be adhered to by a person undertaking the recruitment and selection process for a public sector entity: 44 Principles underpinning recruitment and selection (1) The purpose of this section is to ensure the recruitment and selection of a high-performing, apolitical and representative public sector workforce. (2) A person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity, including, for example, making a decision about employment of a public sector employee, must undertake the process in accordance with the principles mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The principles are— (a) recruitment and selection processes must be directed to the selection of the eligible person best suited to the position; and (b) recruitment and selection processes must be fair and transparent; and (c) recruitment and selection processes must reflect the obligations under chapter 2 relating to equity, diversity, respect and inclusion. [24] Section 45 of the PS Act details what a person may consider when determining the eligibility of an applicant best suited to the position: 45 Employment on merit and for equity and diversity (1) A person selected for employment in or to a public sector entity must be the eligible applicant best suited to the position. -- 6 of 19 -- 7 (2) In deciding the eligible applicant best suited to a position, a person undertaking a recruitment and selection process in a public sector entity— (a) must consider each eligible applicant’s ability to perform the requirements of the position; and (b) may consider— (i) the way in which each eligible applicant carried out any previous employment; and (ii) the potential of each eligible applicant to make a future contribution to the entity; and (iii) the extent to which the proposed decision would contribute to fulfilment of the entity’s obligations under chapter 2, including, for example, the objectives, strategies and targets stated in the entity’s equity and diversity plan. [25] The Recruitment and selection (Directive 07/23) ('Directive 07/23') further provides: 9. Selecting the eligible applicant best suited to the position … Selection panels 9.5 Where a vacancy is advertised, selection processes and notification of outcomes must take place in a timely manner. To facilitate this, selection panels should be formed and selection strategies determined prior to the closing date of the vacancy advertisement. 9.6 In determining the composition of a selection panel (which must include a minimum of two people), a chief executive must consider diversity of the panel as a key factor for successful recruitment, particularly in the context of their obligations under chapter 2 of the Act. 9.7 The decision maker should generally not be a member of the selection panel. 9.8 To promote integrity and diversity in recruitment, selection panels must: (a) consider and declare any actual, potential or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest between each panel member and the applicants, or, the absence of such conflicts of interest (b) consider elements of conscious or unconscious bias that may impact the process, including mitigation strategies (c) consider how the selection process can be accessible, inclusive and culturally safe (as relevant to each circumstance and organisational context) (d) provide candidate care, including through timely and regular communication with applicants … -- 7 of 19 -- 8 Referee checks 9.12 At a minimum, referee checking must be conducted for the applicant determined to be best suited to the position, including where a process is used to fill a recurring vacancy under clause 8.19 and where a decision is made to directly employ someone without advertising a vacancy under clause 8.16. 9.13 At least one referee must have thorough knowledge of the applicant’s conduct and performance within the previous two years, unless there are circumstances that would make this requirement impractical (such as the referee being on extended leave) and/or a barrier for a person entering or re-entering the workforce. … 9.15 Referees must provide an honest account of an applicant’s performance and workplace conduct relevant to the role. 9.16 Where a selection panel believes there are referees other than those nominated by the applicant who hold information relevant to the selection decision, a selection panel may contact the applicant for additional referees. Where an applicant declines, the panel must make its recommendation on the information before it. … 12. Post-selection matters Feedback 12.1 All applicants are to be advised that they may request feedback from the selection panel. In cases of graduate program applicants, this requirement only extends to applicants who were interviewed. 12.2 Applicants who request feedback must receive timely, specific and constructive feedback from a member of the selection panel. The mode of feedback is at the discretion of the panel member providing feedback, and must be reasonable in the circumstances. (Emphasis added) Submissions [26] The Commission directed the parties to file and serve written submissions on 14 October 2025. In the absence of a request to the contrary from either party, the matter has been decided on the papers pursuant to s 451(1) of the IR Act. Appellant’s submissions [27] Dr Duffy filed her written submissions on 11 November 2025. They are predominantly a reiteration of the reasons for appeal contained in her Notice of Appeal filed on 10 -- 8 of 19 -- 9 October 2025. The Notice of Appeal itself mirrors the email correspondence of Dr Duffy dated 16 September 2025. [28] Throughout her submissions, Dr Duffy relies on the Recruitment and selection – Human Resources Policy B1 (QH-POL-212) ('the Recruitment Policy') which outlines the recruitment and selection requirements specific to Queensland Health vacancies. The Recruitment Policy aligns with Directive 07/23. [29] The three grounds of appeal nominated by Dr Duffy can be summarised as follows: (a) Ground 1: Incorrect panel composition (b) Ground 2: Inadequate checking of referees (c) Ground 3: Process not fair and/or transparent Ground 1: Incorrect panel composition [30] Dr Duffy relies on clause 11.1 of the Recruitment Policy to assert that the panel was composed incorrectly: 11 Panel responsibilities 11.1 Selection panel In determining the composition of a selection panel (which must include a minimum of two people), a delegate must consider diversity of the panel as a key factor for successful recruitment, particularly in the context of their obligations under chapter 2 of the Public Sector Act 2022. Consideration should be given to the appropriate gender balance, cultural competency, and addressing the panel's unconscious bias and affinity bias. Panels must be comprised of at least two members with a minimum of one external panel member. An external panel member must be from outside the employing branch or work area and may be from another specialty area, division, hospital and health service or public sector entity. All members must understand the requirements of the role, and at least one member must have detailed knowledge. … … In these instances, one member of the panel must possess the attribute that is the basis for the role. This may require a specialist panel member from another government department, public sector entity or community group selected for their knowledge of the skills required for the role. … (Emphasis added) [31] Dr Duffy contends the panel was not composed in accordance with clause 11.1 of the Recruitment Policy because: -- 9 of 19 -- 10 (a) all four members of were female. Therefore, the panel did not have an appropriate gender balance; and (b) the panel did not include any members with molecular measurable residual disease ('MRD') monitoring experience. Dr Duffy submits that molecular MRD monitoring is the main function of the team that the position was established to supervise. She alleges that practitioners with such experience were not requested to be members of the panel. Dr Duffy says that, due to the lack of experience in molecular MRD monitoring among the panel members (no on-site line managers were on the panel), the applicants were not explicitly asked about their competency in performing in-house molecular leukemia testing. Dr Duffy alleges that the second applicant only has experience from working in other molecular leukemia testing laboratories. Ground 2: Inadequate checking of referees [32] Regarding the contacting of referees during the recruitment and selection process, clause 13 of the Recruitment Policy provides: 13 Referee checking The following requirements for referee checking are in addition to the requirements outlined in Directive 07/23 Recruitment and selection, sections 9.12-9.16. A referee report in the context of recruitment is a document provided by a person (referee) who can vouch for a candidate's qualifications, skills, work ethic, observed attributes and suitability for a particular role. 13.1 Use of referee reports A referee report is to be undertaken within 6 months prior to the date of delegate sign off for all appointments regardless of the nature or duration of the appointment. Medical and executive roles require a minimum of two reports. Referees must be informed that their comments will be made available to the applicant if requested. At least one referee must have thorough knowledge of the applicants conduct and performance within the previous two years, unless there are circumstances that would make this requirement impractical and or a barrier for a person entering or re-entering the workforce (section 9.13, Directive 07/23 – Recruitment and selection). ... … 13.2 Identifying referees The referee is to be the current line manager or to have been in a recent supervisory relationship, i.e. within the past two years, with the applicant. … -- 10 of 19 -- 11 The panel is only to contact referees that have been nominated by the applicant. The panel is not to contact the current supervisor for a referee check unless the applicant has nominated the supervisor as a referee through the application process or written/witnessed verbal consent has been given by the applicant. A panel member can act as a referee for an applicant (refer section 11.2.1 of this policy). … (Emphasis added) [33] Dr Duffy contends that the respondent departed from clause 13 of the Recruitment Policy when conducting the referee check for the second applicant, resulting in a 'deficient' recruitment and selection process: (a) the respondent did not contact any on-site line managers to be referees for the second applicant (nor were they on the panel) despite using a closed merit selection process. The referee report questions the 'Organisational Fit' and 'Job Performance' of applicants which includes seeking information on their work performance, behaviour and interpersonal skills. Dr Duffy asserts that such attributes could not be determined for the second applicant; and (b) Dr Duffy is aware that the second applicant is the subject of "significant behavioural and compliance concerns".19 She posits that although the Panel Chair (being the Principal Scientist Chief of Genomics) was the proposed incoming line manager, they were unable to witness the behaviour of the second applicant first-hand. This is because the Panel Chair was based at a different campus to the second applicant and their planned monthly visits to the campus had been cancelled for July and August. Ground 3: Process not fair and/or transparent [34] Clause 16.2 of the Recruitment Policy provides: 16.2 Other notifications After shortlisting, the panel may advise non-shortlisted candidates via e-mail that they were unsuccessful and that their application is no longer being considered. Unsuccessful applicants who progressed past the shortlisting stage, i.e. those candidates who will appear in the selection report, must first be verbally advised that they were unsuccessful. When applicable, an appeal period of 21 days commences from the date that the appointment is published the Queensland Government Gazette and/or the Health Services Bulletin. Refer to the PSC Directive – 03/17 Appeals or your local recruitment services unit for further information. 19 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, page 2. -- 11 of 19 -- 12 … (Emphasis added) [35] Dr Duffy claims that the respondent breached clause 16.2 of the Recruitment Policy because they did not verbally advise her, as a shortlisted candidate, that she had been unsuccessful in the recruitment and selection process. Rather, the Panel Chair notified Dr Duffy of the outcome via email correspondence on 3 September 2025, while she was on recreational leave. She describes receipt of this email correspondence as "unnecessarily stressful" and "disrespectful".20 Dr Duffy claims that the conduct of the respondent lacked fairness and transparency for the following reasons: (a) she had booked her leave in May 2025 and worked on site up to and including 29 August 2025, so there was "every opportunity"21 for the Panel Chair to advise her of the outcome verbally before her leave commenced; (b) her secondment to the Haematology Molecular Unit at the PAH was due to end on 29 August 2025. She therefore commenced her leave without knowing where she would be working upon her return; (c) the email correspondence of 3 September 2025 was sent to her 'junk' folder as she had never received any correspondence from the email address of the Panel Chair in the past; and (d) one day before Dr Duffy returned from overseas on 9 September 2025, the Panel Chair advised the workplace via email correspondence that the second applicant was the successful candidate for the position. Dr Duffy described discovering the email correspondence of 8 September 2025 as "unprofessional and astonishingly disrespectful".22 [36] It is noted that throughout her submissions, Dr Duffy makes various remarks about the competency of the second applicant and alleges that a number of incidences occurred with the involvement of the second applicant. I will address these allegations later in these reasons. [37] Dr Duffy closes her submissions by requesting the appointment of the second applicant to the position be revoked and either: i. a new process be undertaken using an alternative panel composition; or 20 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, page 3. 21 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, attachment 1 page 3. 22 Appellant's submissions filed 11 November 2025, attachment 1 page 3. -- 12 of 19 -- 13 ii. the same on-site line managers (being the Supervising Scientist, Special Investigations and/or the Principal Chief Scientist of Haematology, PAH) supply referee reports for both Dr Duffy and the second applicant, and the selection report be reviewed by an alternative delegate not involved in the original process. Respondent’s submissions [38] The respondent filed its written submissions on 8 December 2025. The submissions contest each of the grounds that Dr Duffy alleges render the decision unfair and unreasonable. Ground 1: Incorrect panel composition [39] The respondent acknowledges that clause 9.6 of Directive 07/23 and clause 11.1 of the Recruitment Policy requires that consideration be given to the diversity of the panel, including gender diversity. However, Directive 07/23 does not mandate a specific gender mix. [40] The respondent submits that the Panel Chair made attempts to obtain panel members to ensure a gender balance, but they declined. Consequently, gender diversity was not achievable due to the requirement that panel members also have the necessary technical and operational knowledge of the position. This was communicated to applicants for the position on 30 September 2025 via the release of a statement by the Panel Chair:23 Statement [redacted] Genomics Discipline, Pathology Queensland [redacted] 1. I am the Principal Chief Scientist at the Genomics Discipline, Pathology Queensland 2. I have held this role since February 2024. 3. In prep the recruitment for the Supervising Scientist, Molecular Haematology, Genomics, in an effort to have gender balance in the recruitment panel I personally approached two male staff members in Molecular Genetics (both are advanced scientists (HP5)) to be on the panel following the advertisement for the position (July/early August 2025) [redacted] declared a conflict of interest and turned down the request. I proceeded to request [redacted] an advanced scientist (Cytogenetics) within Genomics with high level expertise in molecular haematology and she accepted. [41] The respondent argues that the panel comprised of members with molecular MRD monitoring experience because: 23 Respondent's submissions filed 8 December 2025, attachment 9. -- 13 of 19 -- 14 (a) both the Panel Chair and Panel Member 1 are experts in Fluorescent insitu Hybridization ('FISH'), being initial tests utilised in MRD monitoring. Panel Member 2 is a Haematologist with extensive knowledge in MRD and has led advanced methodologies at the PAH and is considered an expert; (b) the Panel Chair has assisted in the development of the GenXpert based MRD assay and is across all methodologies in MRD monitoring; and (c) three of the four panel members hold relevant qualifications in Genomics. Ground 2: Inadequate checking of referees [42] With respect to Dr Duffy's submission that the panel did not contact appropriate referees, the respondent contends that clause 9.13 of Directive 07/23 provides that at least one referee must have thorough knowledge of an applicant's conduct and work performance within the previous two years. The second applicant supplied three referee reports, one being from the Acting Director in Haematology, PQ, CSQ who had supervised the genomics testing assays completed by the second applicant and had previously overseen their teaching of the haematology registrars. Additionally, the two other referees were previous supervisors of the second applicant and a colleague. [43] With respect to Dr Duffy's allegations about the second applicant being the subject of "significant behavioural and compliance concerns", the respondent observes that no adverse information in relation to the second applicant was received by the panel or the decision maker through referee checks and other pre-employment screening processes. [44] For completeness, the respondent submits that it is entirely a matter for a selection panel to consider whether referees nominated by an applicant are appropriate and, in this case, the panel was satisfied. Ground 3: Process not fair and/or transparent [45] The respondent accepts that while it is best practise to advise an applicant of decisions verbally in the first instance, the selection report was not approved by the decision maker until 1 September 2025, i.e. after Dr Duffy commenced recreational leave on 29 August 2025. [46] As Dr Duffy was to remain on leave until 27 September 2025 (being a period of almost one month) the respondent submits that advising Dr Duffy of the decision via email correspondence and advising the workplace was not unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances. [47] The respondent closes its submissions by requesting the Commission confirm the decision. -- 14 of 19 -- 15 Submissions in reply [48] Dr Duffy filed her reply submissions on 5 January 2026, the majority of which introduces additional contentions about how she has been treated disrespectfully and alludes to further flaws in the recruitment process. [49] Dr Duffy first posits that, due to the wording used in the position advertisement, a colleague who had been "effectively running the molecular haematology laboratory for the last ~10 years" was precluded from applying. Dr Duffy pronounces the colleague as "the most obvious choice for the role" and praises their technical knowledge of molecular MRD monitoring and reputation within the industry.24 [50] Dr Duffy then alleges that the level of involvement and/or influence that the Panel Chair had throughout the recruitment and selection process impacted the outcome:25 … I then realised that the individual who likely wrote and distributed the role description was also the contact person and the panel chair. This same person recruited the selection panel without inviting any of the existing line managers to contribute. The PQ referee for the chosen applicant was also a panel member. To have a process where one person has end to end influence like this is, I believe, risky. The disrespect that was shown to me at the outcome notification step is consistent with bias by this same person. Clearly, two internal applicants needed to be notified of the outcome of this process and only one person was. That was a decision by the panel chair. To choose instead to notify me by email, in breach of the recruitment policy, was a second decision. To do so while I was on an overseas family holiday was a third decision. To then publicly announce the outcome before I had returned to Australia was a forth decision. I was only overseas for 6 workdays and had booked leave for just 10 workdays. The announcement could have waited until I returned to work. The notification should have occurred, in person or by phone, before my contract ended. I cannot prove that this was deliberate, but this cascade of decisions was certainly highly disrespectful and damaging. … Now it is clear how much influence on person had throughout the whole process, and how that might have affected the outcome, I think it is only fair that the decision should be set aside and restarted from the beginning. (Emphasis added) 24 Appellant's reply submissions filed 5 January 2026. 25 Appellant's reply submissions filed 5 January 2026. -- 15 of 19 -- 16 [51] Dr Duffy further disputes that the panel members possessed the requisite level of understanding or knowledge of the position (Ground 1). She observes that Panel Member 1, being the 'technical expert', has the same professional background as the Panel Chair (in cytogenetics) but little to no experience in molecular MRD using the same technologies in use at the PAH laboratory. Dr Duffy argues that FISH is not a method used by the Haematology Molecular Unit at the PAH. [52] Finally, Dr Duffy observes that the respondent has evidenced disrespect for her by using the incorrect honorifics in their submissions (referring to her as 'Ms Duffy' rather than 'Dr Duffy'), and disrespect for her colleagues by misrepresenting the number of full-time equivalent positions within the discipline on the Business Case for Change. Consideration [53] The singular focus of the Commission when considering public service appeals is to consider whether the decision under review is fair and reasonable. Whether a decision under review is fair and reasonable will largely be determined within the confines of the circumstances of each matter. [1] In this matter the grounds relied on by Dr Duffy are a mixture of assertions as to alleged facts, and complaints about non-compliance with directives and policies. With respect to the latter, it ought to be noted at the outset that I have previously observed the notion of ‘fair and reasonable’ is not synonymous with strict compliance with directives and policies. In Ehrlich v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) I made the following observation:26 The singular purpose of the Commission when conducting a review of a decision is to determine if it was fair and reasonable. “Fair and reasonable” is a broad concept in respect of the consideration applied by the Commission. While conforming with a directive is ideal, a failure by a decision maker to comply with a directive (of itself) will not render a decision unfair or unreasonable. It will always be the case that fairness and reasonableness are determined by consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding a decision under review. There will be matters such as this where common sense must prevail over procedure and technicality. While I am unable to find fault with the decisions under review, to whatever extent the decision maker has been unclear or has deviated from the procedural path, he has arrived at a decision that is objectively and resoundingly correct given the facts. [54] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that Dr Duffy has failed to demonstrate the decision under review was other than fair and reasonable. 26 [2024] QIRC 209 at [22]-[25]. -- 16 of 19 -- 17 Ground 1 [55] In the submissions supporting her Notice of Appeal, Dr Duffy contends that the selection panel ‘is supposed to have an appropriate gender balance…’ This is a misrepresentation of the policy which in fact says: In determining the composition of a selection panel (which must include a minimum of two people), a delegate must consider diversity of the panel as a key factor for successful recruitment, particularly in the context of their obligations under chapter 2 of the Public Sector Act 2022. Consideration should be given to the appropriate gender balance, cultural competency, and addressing the panel's unconscious bias and affinity bias. [56] The respondent is only required to consider gender balance. The respondent contends that they did and clearly explain how they came to have an all-female panel. Dr Duffy presents no evidence to refute any of this. The appeal ground cannot be sustained. [57] Additionally, Dr Duffy contends that the panel was also non-compliant with the policy because it did not include anyone with ‘molecular measurable residual disease monitoring experience’. Again, this overstates the policy which in fact says: All members must understand the requirements of the role, and at least one member must have detailed knowledge. … … In these instances, one member of the panel must possess the attribute that is the basis for the role. This may require a specialist panel member from another government department, public sector entity or community group selected for their knowledge of the skills required for the role. [58] Dr Duffy conflates ‘understand’ with ‘experience’. The respondents have plainly set out the expertise of the relevant panel members and demonstrated that they individually and collectively have more than enough knowledge and experience to understand the role. They are not required by the policy to have direct experience in the role. For this reason also, the appeal ground cannot be sustained. [59] Further, even if the policy held the panel to a standard of the type contended for by Dr Duffy, it is entirely unclear how an all-female panel may have produced any gender bias for a female candidate. It is further unclear how an absence of actual experience in the precise scientific field practiced by Dr Duffy could render a recruitment decision of the panel so fundamentally illegitimate that it would justify displacing an otherwise suitably qualified candidate who had been successful. [60] Ground 1 of the appeal fails. -- 17 of 19 -- 18 Ground 2 [61] In her second ground of appeal Dr Duffy levels significant criticisms against the successful candidate. Not only does she contend that the recruitment panel failed to speak with relevant managers, but she then descends into descriptions of (entirely unsubstantiated) allegations about the successful candidate’s behaviour and professionalism. The allegations are supported by no evidence. They are proffered merely on the pretext of Dr Duffy saying she is ‘aware’ of them. [62] Further, Dr Duffy notes that the successful applicant did not nominate her line manager as a referee. Dr Duffy contends that this is a ‘red flag’. [63] The respondents contend that they were at all relevant times wholly unaware of any suitability issues that could have impacted the successful candidate’s prospects. This was so notwithstanding that they had taken all steps to inform themselves of such matters by having regard to referee reports and other pre-employment screening processes. Further, the respondent correctly contends that it is a matter for the panel to identify who they might appropriately seek references from. [64] In ground 2 Dr Duffy makes adverse assertions about the suitability of the successful candidate without any hint of objective evidence to support them. It is particularly troubling that the allegations go well beyond mere contentions of the successful candidate being e.g. less qualified. The allegations allude to serious professional failings which, if Dr Duffy truly considered were genuine, she should have reported independently long before this appeal. [65] The attacks on the merits of the successful applicant are unsupported by any independent evidence. It is a matter for the respondent but, in my view, if it were established that Dr Duffy’s allegations were not or could not have been genuinely held, her reliance on them in this appeal (or at all) is conduct worthy of separate consideration as to whether she has engaged in misconduct. This conduct is further compounded by Dr Duffy’s further unsupported aspersions contained in her Reply submissions. [66] Ground 2 of the appeal fails. Ground 3 [67] In what seems to be rather oppressive language, the recruitment policy prescribes: Unsuccessful applicants who progressed past the shortlisting stage, i.e. those candidates who will appear in the selection report, must first be verbally advised that they were unsuccessful. (Emphasis added) -- 18 of 19 -- 19 [68] It is not controversial that Dr Duffy was not first verbally advised and so, technically, the respondent has contravened the recruitment policy. In the circumstances of this case I am entirely satisfied that this contravention was neither unfair nor unreasonable. [69] The explanation for the contravention is simple and plausible. Dr Duffy went on leave approximately 4 days before the recruitment decision was made. Dr Duffy was overseas on holiday. In those circumstances she was notified via email which, through no fault of the respondent, went to Dr Duffy’s ‘junk’ folder and was not seen. [70] Further, in circumstances where Dr Duffy would have been anticipating some notice from the respondent about the recruitment process, it is difficult to understand how it was she came to be so completely oblivious to the communication. It is the unfortunate fate of any diligent professional with an email account that holidays will inevitably be interspersed with routine checks for relevant work emails, whether they are obliged to do so or not. In any event, even if Dr Duffy had been checking, the diversion of this email to the junk folder was not the fault of the respondent. [71] While the respondent appears to have failed to comply with the policy requiring them to have first verbally advised Dr Duffy of their decision, I do not consider that to be unfair or unreasonable. On the contrary, I consider it entirely unreasonable for Dr Duffy to expect that the entire recruitment process should grind to a halt for two weeks while the respondent awaits her return from leave so they can tell her verbally that she did not get the job. [72] Notwithstanding the failure to notify Dr Duffy verbally, the delay in telling her on her return did not deprive her of her right to appeal the decision. That is to say, Dr Duffy’s rights were in no way denied or restricted by the respondent’s failing. While the respondent has not technically complied with the policy, nothing about the circumstances renders the decision unfair or unreasonable. [73] Ground 3 of the appeal fails. Orders [74] The Commission makes the following orders: The promotion decision is confirmed. -- 19 of 19 --