Campbell v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) [2026] QIRC 93

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Campbell v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) [2026] QIRC 093 PARTIES: Campbell, Scott Robert (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/181 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a promotion decision DELIVERED ON: 27 March 2026 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Power IC On the papers ORDER: The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – PROMOTION – public sector appeal – appeal against a promotion decision – where the Appellant unsuccessfully applied for a position – whether the appointment was a non-appealable decision – whether jurisdiction to hear the appeal. LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS: Directive 04/23 – Appeals Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 562B, s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld), s 44, s 84, s 131, s 132 CASES: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10 -- 1 of 8 -- 2 Goodall v State of Qld & Anor [2018] QSC 319 Reasons for decision Introduction [1] Mr Scott Robert Campbell ('the Appellant') is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) ('the Respondent') as an SO3 Station Officer within the Fire Department. [2] The Appellant applied for the Statewide Inspector role within the Talent Acquisition Fire and Rescue Department with the Respondent. On 30 April 2025, the Respondent advised the Appellant his written application was not accepted, and he would not progress. [3] By appeal notice filed on 8 September 2025, pursuant to s 131(1)(e) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'), the Appellant appealed the Respondent's promotion decision. Appeal principles [4] The appeal must be decided by reviewing the decision appealed against.1 Because the word 'review' has no settled meaning, it must take its meaning from the context in which it appears.2 An appeal under ch 11 pt 6 div 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') is not by way of rehearing,3 but involves a review of the decision arrived at and the decision making process associated therewith. [5] The stated purpose of such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.4 Findings which are reasonably open to the decision maker are not expected to be disturbed on appeal. What decisions can the Industrial Commissioner make? [6] In deciding this appeal, s 562C of the IR Act provides that the Industrial Commissioner may: a. confirm the decision appealed against; or b. set the decision aside and substitute another decision; or c. 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. 1 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(2) ('IR Act'). 2 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245, 261. 3 Goodall v State of Qld & Anor [2018] QSC 319, 5 as to the former, equivalent provisions in s 201 of the PS Act. 4 IR Act (n 1), s 562B(3). -- 2 of 8 -- 3 Reasons for Appeal [7] The Appellant's grounds for appeal as stated in the appeal notice submit that: • the Appellant refers to fairness in the scoring of his application and resume, and that the feedback he received was generic and ambiguous; • the Appellant has acted in the position he applied for on and off for a period of 13 years; • the Appellant is currently accepted to act in this position for his region where each year he has submitted his resume and statement of suitability and has never been denied going into the internal pool of staff; • the Appellant is yet to receive negative feedback from his acting positions having received only positive feedback; • peers and several line managers support the Appellant’s advancement to this fulltime position; and • the Appellant seeks transparency and fairness as to why he is not deemed suitable for the position he continues to act in. Submissions [8] The Commission issued a Directions Order calling for submissions from both parties following receipt of the appeal notice. The submissions are summarised below. Appellant's submissions [9] Regarding the background to the appeal the Appellant submits that: • the appeal challenges the decision not to progress the application for Inspector, a management role in the Operational Senior Officer stream, with the Respondent; • the three-stage process involves a written application, operational/practical testing, and an interview; • on 30 April 2025, the Appellant was rejected at the written application stage, despite many other applicants advancing which he deems unfair and unreasonable; and • prior to the submission of his written application the Appellant sought clarification on format and content but received only general verbal guidance after his initial referral to the interview panel chair was redirected to Talent Acquisition. -- 3 of 8 -- 4 [10] Regarding the written application and the merit process, the Appellant submits that his statement of suitability, and resume, demonstrate high-level qualifications, skills, and experience, warranting progression to the operational and practical testing stage, however, no details were provided on assessment where it is unusual not to advance suitable candidates. [11] The Appellant submits that further information as to the assessment of the statement of suitability has been requested under the Right to Information Act 2009 and this information may be provided to the Commission. [12] Regarding the feedback given, the Appellant submits that post rejection feedback was vague, contradictory and unhelpful for future applications or current role. [13] The Appellant further submits that he has intermittently acted as Inspector without issues or negative feedback, gaining broad operational and managerial experience, including interagency incident control. [14] As to his suitability for the role, the Appellant submits that he meets all mandatory qualifications per the role description since he: • holds a valid Blue Card and Medium Rigid Driver’s licence; • holds Station Officer Level 3 rank with completed qualifications; • maintained competencies; and • has not been subject to conduct or performance matters. [15] The Appellant submits that his skills and qualifications justified advancement in the recruitment process, where the Respondent provided ineffective pre-application advice, and as such, under s 562C(1)(b) of the IR Act, the Commission ought to set aside the process, recommencing from advertising with a new selection panel for fairness, or any other appropriate order. Respondent's submissions [16] The Respondent raises two issues challenging the Appellant’s jurisdiction to appeal. 1. The Position had not yet gazetted 2. The Appellant is appealing a non-appealable appointment [17] The Respondent submits that per cl 10.4(a) of Directive 04/23 – Appeals ('the Directive'), appeals require prior gazette publication under s 84(2) of the PS Act, where the appeal was lodged on 8 September 2025, before the gazette on 19 September 2025. -- 4 of 8 -- 5 [18] In relation to the contention that the appointment was not appealable, the Respondent submits that: • clause 17(b)(i) of the Directive provides that appeals are barred for roles exceeding AO8 maximum salary or the full-time equivalent; • the AO8.4 salary is $156,143, or $153,869; • inspector salary is $156,691, or $160,718.15 exceeding AO8 max; and • the above positions were listed as non-appealable in Queensland Government Gazette No.15. [19] The Respondent submits that no jurisdiction exists for this appeal and as such requests the Commission to not to hear the matter. Appellant's submissions in reply [20] With regards to his initial submission, the Appellant submits that the following points are relevant for the Commission’s consideration: • No basis was provided for not progressing beyond the written application. • The Appellant sought pre-application advice, but only verbal and general responses were received. • The Appellant’s demonstration of merit via his written application. • The post-rejection feedback. • The Appellant has consistently acted in the Inspector role for 13 years without issues. • The Appellant’s suitability in meeting all role qualifications, with no conduct/performance matters. [21] With regards to the Respondent’s submission, the Appellant submits that while the Respondent claims no jurisdiction, the appeal was encouraged by the Respondent, who advised it was appealable, where a Right to Information request confirms the Respondent’s intent to suggest appealing. [22] Overall, the Appellant contends that he lacks clarity on the Respondent’s actions, which significantly impact him. -- 5 of 8 -- 6 [23] The Appellant submits that his first submission shows the application warranted further consideration, with ineffective pre-application advice and unhelpful feedback. [24] The Appellant further submits that the Respondent’s jurisdictional argument contradicts its own advice. [25] As such, the Appellant submits that under s562C(1)(b) of the IR Act, the Commission ought to set aside the process, recommence the process by advertising with a new selection panel for fairness, or any other appropriate order the Commission deems fit. Consideration [26] The decision before the Commission is whether there are jurisdictional barriers preventing the appeal from being determined, and if not, if the decision by the Respondent was fair and reasonable. [27] I note the Respondent’s submission that the Queensland Government Gazette identifies the appointments as non-appealable. Whilst this confirms the Respondent’s view that such appointments may not be appealed, it is necessary to consider whether a statutory basis exists for such a view. [28] The first jurisdictional issue raised by the Respondent relates to the timing of the appeal. Appeals of this nature are governed by the Directive. Clause 10.4(a) of the Directive is outlined as follows: Further to clause 10.3, a public sector employee is only entitled to appeal a promotion decision: (a) where the decision relates to a promotion of a permanent public sector employee that has been published in accordance with section 84(2) of the Act. [29] Section 84(2) of the PS Act requires that the decision to employ a public sector employee must be published in the Gazette or in another way the commissioner considers appropriate, if the exclusions in s 83(2) do not apply. There is no submission in this matter that the requirements of s 84(2) do not apply to the appointment of Inspector in the Queensland Fire Department. [30] On 19 September 2025 the appointments to the role of Inspector were published in the Queensland Government Gazette, however this appeal was filed on 8 September 2025. [31] In circumstances where the appeal right only arises where the appointment has been published, there was no jurisdiction to file the appeal. [32] The second jurisdictional objection relates to whether the appointment itself is appealable. -- 6 of 8 -- 7 [33] Section 132(1)(l) of the PS Act provides that an appeal cannot be made against a decision involving a non-appealable appointment. [34] Section 132(5) provides the definition of ‘non-appealable appointment’ as meaning an appointment or employment: (a) for which the commissioner is satisfied the principles mentioned in section 44 are sufficiently protected by ways other than an appeal under this part; and (b) that the commissioner has declared by gazette notice, or a directive, to be an appointment or employment against which an appeal may not be made. [35] In accordance with s 132(5)(b), the Directive declares that particular appointments may not be subject to appeal. [36] Clause 17.1 of the Directive provides the following: In consideration of the definition of ‘non-appealable appointment’ provided for in section 132(5) of the Act, it is declared that an appeal may not be made against the following appointments or employment: (a) an appointment or employment that is not a promotion (b) to a role remunerated in excess of: (i) the maximum salary applicable to the AO8 classification level within the relevant entity (or the full-time equivalent for part-time roles), or (ii) in cases where an entity does not have a remuneration scale that includes an AO8 classification level, the maximum salary applicable to the AO8 classification level provided for in the Queensland Public Service Officers and Other Employees Award- State 2015, or the core State Government Entities certified agreement, whichever is the higher rate (or the full time equivalent for part time roles). … [37] In relation to cl 17.1(b)(i), consideration must be given to the maximum salary applicable to the AO8 classification level within the relevant entity. [38] The maximum salary for an AO8.4 as provided in the relevant industrial instruments at the time of the appeal is as follows: • In accordance with the Queensland Public Service Officers and Other Employees Award – State 2015, the annual salary is $156,143. • In accordance with the State Government Entities Certified Agreement 2023 is $153,869. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 [39] The annual salary for an Inspector at the time of the appeal is as follows: • In accordance with the Queensland Fire and Emergency service Employees Award – State 2016 is $156,691. • In accordance with the Queensland Fire and Emergency Services Certified Agreement 2022 is $160,718. [40] On the basis that the annual salary for an Inspector exceeds the maximum annual salary applicable to the AO8 classification level within the relevant entity, the decision regarding the appointments is non-appealable in accordance with cl 17.1(b)(i) of the Directive. [41] I note the Applicant’s submission that he had commenced the appeal on the basis of advice from the Respondent that the outcome was appealable. The Applicant referred to an email from Ms Lorelei Hill advising that he may appeal the recruitment process after the process is finalised and appointments had been made. The email also provided links to information about the recruitment and selection procedure and the PS Act. [42] It is understandable that the Appellant accepted the information contained in the email from Ms Hill. It is regrettable that such information indicated that an appeal right existed for the position. [43] Regardless of the Respondent’s initial advice, the Commission is bound by the provisions of the PS Act with regard to decisions that may be appealed. In circumstances where it is clear that the appointment decision is non-appealable, there is no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Order [44] I order accordingly. 1. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. -- 8 of 8 --