Campbell v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2026] QIRC 27

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: PARTIES: Campbell v State of Queensland (Department of Education) [2026] QIRC 027 Campbell, Heidi Jane (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Department of Education) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/276 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a conversion decision DELIVERED ON: 4 February 2026 DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Appeal Notice (5 December 2025) Respondent's submissions (22 December 2025) MEMBER: HEARD AT: Pidgeon IC On the papers OUTCOME: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – where the Appellant was engaged to act in a higher classification position for a period of over two years – where the Appellant has since been returned to her substantive position – where the Appellant made a request to be permanently appointed to the higher classification position – where the Respondent submits that genuine operational requirements exist to support the refusal to appoint the Appellant to a higher classification – where the Appellant appeals the decision of the Respondent not to appoint her to a higher classification – where the decision -- 1 of 10 -- 2 appealed against is fair and reasonable – where the decision appealed against is confirmed LEGISLATION AND OTHERINSTRUMENTS: Directive 03/23: Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level cl 6 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562C(1) Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 120 CASES: Pallourios v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2021] QIRC 187 Rackley v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2024] QIRC 80 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] Ms Heidi Campbell ('the Appellant') is substantively employed by the State of Queensland (Department of Education) ('the Respondent') as an AO3 Liaison Officer at Noosa District State High School. Since August 2023, she was engaged to act in a higher classification position of AO4 Student Support Officer ('SSO') at Nambour State College. [2] On 3 November 2025, Ms Campbell made a request to be permanently appointed to the higher classification level position pursuant to s 120 of the Public Sector Act 2016 (Qld) ('the PS Act') and cl 6 of the Directive 03/23: Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level ('the Directive'). [3] On 27 November 2025, Ms Campbell was informed that she would not be appointed to the higher classification level on a permanent basis. The decision noted that Ms Campbell had been acting in the position for a continuous period of more than one-year and that she is suitable for appointment to the higher-level position. However, the decision stated that genuine operational requirements exist to support the refusal of her request to be appointed at the higher-level position. With regard to the operational requirements preventing Ms Campbell's appointment, the decision-maker said: In this case I have determined that it is not appropriate to permanently employ you in the higher classification level position. The purpose of your employment is to perform work for a particular project or purpose that has a known end date. Consultation with Nambour State College has confirmed the position you are currently engaged in was created by the college for the specific purpose of behaviour management and tracking student engagement. This position is currently being funded by the college by utilising school funds, which -- 2 of 10 -- 3 do not sit within the permanent establishment of the college. This funding arrangement has a known end date of 12 December 2025. From 2026, the college has confirmed it has created a new four-year strategic plan, with the position you are currently engaged in to be managed by the Deputy Principal and Dean of Students. This position will no longer exist at the AO4 classification level, to align properly to the needs of the school. The position you are currently engaged in will cease on 12 December 2025. I have considered the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources and human resource planning with the department. In the absence of guaranteed permanent funding, and the ongoing future structure and resourcing identified, it would not be viable or appropriate for the department to support your employment on a permanent basis at this time. [4] As of 13 December 2025, Ms Campbell returned to her substantive role.1 [5] Ms Campbell appeals the decision on the following grounds:2 1. The decision relies on unproven claims that the position is temporary and ending. 2. The duties I perform are core and ongoing operational requirements. 3. The school's ongoing operational reliance on the position contradicts the decision. 4. The role has been continuously extended for more than two years. 5. 'School-funded' does not prevent conversion. 6. The decision-maker did not correctly balance the s 120(4) factors. [6] The Respondent submits that the decision was fair and reasonable on the basis that it: complies with the relevant sections of the PS Act and the Directive; had due regard for Ms Campbell's human rights; and it was reasonably open to the decision-maker not to approve Ms Campbell's request due to the Department's genuine operational requirements.3 [7] The issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the decision was fair and reasonable. For the reasons which follow, the decision that Ms Campbell would not be appointed to the higher classification level position is fair and reasonable. On that basis, the decision is confirmed pursuant to s 562C(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'). 1 Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 22 December 2025 [19]. 2 Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 5 December 2025, Schedule. Ms Campbell did not make any further submissions in support of her appeal. 3 Respondent's submissions (n 1) [12]. -- 3 of 10 -- 4 Consideration of each of Ms Campbell's grounds of appeal and the submissions of the Respondent First Ground of Appeal: The decision relies on unproven claims the position is temporary and ending [8] Ms Campbell says that while the decision asserts her position will cease on 12 December 2025, no documentary evidence was provided to demonstrate that the role is genuinely ending. Ms Campbell says that no organisational chart, workforce plan, establishment change, or budget documentation was included with the decision. Ms Campell says that other decisions of the Commission have required evidence, rather than statements, when relying on 'genuine operational requirements'. Ms Campbell submits that 'verbal consultation with the school is not sufficient'. [9] The Respondent submits that it is not required to provide documentary evidence to every employee who is not extended further in their higher duties arrangements. The Respondent says that Ms Campbell was aware, based on the Role Description, that the higher duties arrangement was temporary in nature. [10] The Respondent submits that the position at the higher classification level was created for a specific project or purpose. The Respondent says that Ms Campbell was to perform the duties outlined in the Role Description.4 [11] The Respondent points to the section of the Role Description titled 'Additional Information' and notes that it states: 'Temporary positions: the duration of this position will be dependent on work demands and the availability of ongoing funding and model allocated resources'. [12] The Respondent submits that Ms Campbell was informed in October 2025 that the arrangement would not be extended. [13] The Respondent says that Nambour State College has developed a four-year Strategic Plan 2025-2028 ('the Strategic Plan')5 which it has relied upon to assess the future of various 'mechanisms' within the school, including student support. [14] The Respondent says that through implementing the Strategic Plan, there has been increased capability building of the leadership team in data-informed decision-making through School Online Reporting Dashboard, and the creation of a year level team structure to embed the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support ('MTSS') Framework. 4 Ibid Attachment B. 5 Ibid Attachment C. -- 4 of 10 -- 5 [15] The Respondent says that having evaluated previous processes, the leadership team at Nambour State College determined that the SSO position would not be required beyond the end date of Ms Campbell's higher duties arrangement. [16] The Respondent also says that Nambour State College has experienced a consistent decline in student enrolments over the past four years from 2021, and that data from the Queensland Government Statistics Office Forecast predicts that these enrolments will continue to decline over the next three-years to 2028.6 The Respondent submits that this decline in student enrolment is a significant contributing factor in Nambour State College seeking to increase the capability of their leadership team, more efficiently manage their staffing and their use of public resources. The first ground of appeal is dismissed [17] Ms Campbell's ground of appeal here is that the decision-maker's claim that the position is temporary and is ending is 'unproven'. This ground of appeal must be dismissed. Firstly, the Role Description described the role as temporary. Secondly, Ms Campbell's last extension in the role was for the period of the 2025 school year. Thirdly, Ms Campbell was told in October 2025 that there would be no further extension of the role and that she would return to her substantive position. [18] Further, the decision letter clearly communicated to Ms Campbell that the funding arrangement had a known end date of 12 December 2025, and the position will no longer exist at the AO4 classification level by virtue of the new four-year Strategic Plan. That Ms Campbell disagrees with this operational decision of the school leadership team does not mean that the 'claim' that the position is temporary and ending is 'unproven'. [19] That the role no longer exists is further proof that at the time the decision was made, the position was temporary and was ending. Ms Campbell's first ground of appeal is dismissed. Second and Third Grounds of Appeal: The duties Ms Campbell performs are core and ongoing operational requirements and the school's ongoing operational reliance on the position contradicts the decision [20] Ms Campbell lists the duties she performs in the role and says that these duties are ongoing, required every year and 'cannot simply cease without significant impact to students'. Ms Campbell submits that 'work experience, wellbeing support, engagement monitoring, and student re-engagement are core school functions, not temporary tasks'. [21] Ms Campbell submits that staff have expressed concerns to her about who will take over her duties and says that her role is not surplus. Ms Campbell says students have raised 6 Ibid Attachment E. -- 5 of 10 -- 6 concerns that they will lose support, which Ms Campbell says demonstrates operational impact. Ms Campbell says that the assertion that the duties will be absorbed by the Deputy Principal or Dean is not realistic or evidenced. Ms Campbell says there is an ongoing need for her role, and it is not a temporary project. [22] The Respondent says that Ms Campbell's claims regarding the impact on staff and students for the revised support structure are not supported by evidence. [23] The Respondent submits that it is understandable that students may not have been privy to the plans Nambour State College has to continue to best support them. The Respondent says that some staff at Nambour State College may also not be aware of the resources and practices that it has begun to and/or intends to implement to continue to support students. The Respondent says that this information will be communicated as appropriate and that concerns allegedly raised by staff and students as to who will take over Ms Campbell's duties are matters which can be properly raised with the school leadership team. [24] The Respondent submits that the SSO role is now superfluous as the responsibilities listed in the Role Description have been absorbed by other roles within the school including: Social Worker; Team level year structure; MTSS; and other support initiatives. In support of this submission, the Respondent has included a copy of the Role Description which has been annotated to include information as to how each of the responsibilities of the role are being addressed within the school structure.7 [25] The Respondent submits that the decision as to whether the role is required on an ongoing basis is a matter for the school leadership team and the decision-maker with reference to Industrial Commissioner Knight's decision of Pallourios.8 Ms Campbell's second and third grounds of appeal are dismissed [26] It has been established in previous decisions of the Commission that the obligation to ensure effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources may involve determining that a particular temporary position may no longer be needed. As Industrial Commissioner Pratt observed in Rackley v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),9 'one should not confuse the tasks that make up the role with the role itself…even if some of the tasks that make up the …role might need to be carried out in the future, that does not mean that the …role remains'.10 7 Ibid Attachment D. 8 Pallourios v State of Queensland (Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs) [2021] QIRC 187 [24]–[29]('Pallourios'). 9 [2024] QIRC 80 ('Rackley'). 10 Ibid [23]. -- 6 of 10 -- 7 [27] I accept Ms Campbell's submission that the duties she performs are 'core and ongoing operational requirements'. There is no suggestion that the support provided to students via the duties Ms Campbell was performing will no longer be provided. These services will continue to be provided, albeit in a different way. The letter explains that the Deputy Principal and Dean of Students will be managing the duties of the position going forward. Further detail about this has been provided in the annotated Role Description attached the Respondent's submissions. The Strategic Plan and the detailed list of support services being implemented across the school are sufficient evidence that the school does not have an ongoing operational reliance on the role. [28] Ms Campbell's second and third grounds of appeal are dismissed. Fourth ground of appeal: The role has been continuously extended for more than two years [29] Ms Campbell submits that her continuous acting at the AO4 level over two-years and three-months demonstrates that the work is required, the school relies on the role, and the needs have not been temporary or short term. Ms Campbell says that her repeated extensions in the role undermine the claim of a finite project with a defined end date. [30] The Respondent acknowledges that Ms Campbell has been extended in the SSO role for a period of two years and three months. However, the Respondent says that the most recent extension to the engagement was completed on 20 August 2024, providing the current end date of 12 December 2025. The Respondent says that no further extensions have been completed since that time. [31] The Respondent says that early in Term 4, prior to making the request for conversion, Ms Campbell was informed that her engagement in the SSO position would not be extended. The fourth ground of appeal is dismissed [32] That the role had been continuously extended for more than two years means that Ms Campbell was eligible for a review of her temporary employment in the position at the higher classification level. The decision letter acknowledged that Ms Campbell had been continuously employed in the role for a period of two years and three months and that her engagement in the position had been extended on two occasions. [33] For the reasons set out above, I accept that while the temporary role may have existed for a period of two years and three months, it was open the Respondent to determine that it would cease. As stated above, the Respondent acknowledges that there is an ongoing need for the student support services which were provided by Ms Campbell when she was performing the role, however it has determined that those services will be provided in different way. -- 7 of 10 -- 8 [34] I accept that Nambour State College has undertaken a review and detailed strategic planning which mean that it has a genuine operational requirement to restructure the way student support services are delivered. Ms Campbell's fourth ground of appeal is dismissed. Fifth Ground of Appeal: 'School-funded' does not prevent conversion [35] Ms Campbell says that the decision relies heavily on the role being funded through school funds and funding source alone is not a lawful basis to refuse conversion. However, she notes that the PS Act and the Directive do not exclude school-funded positions from permanent conversion. Ms Campbell says that many roles in Queensland schools are school-funded and still part of ongoing staffing. Ms Campbell says that the Department did not consider whether other AO4 roles may be available for placement. [36] The Respondent rejects Ms Campbell's submission that the decision relied heavily on school funding for the SSO position. The Respondent says that funding was one consideration but was not a determining factor in the decision. The fifth ground of appeal is dismissed [37] Ms Campell rightly points out that school-funded positions are not excluded from permanent conversion. However, in circumstances where funding for a particular position or project is ending, it may be the case that the school has to make decisions about where it will direct its available budget to ensure the effective, efficient and appropriate management of its resources. [38] The school leadership team has undertaken a considered strategic planning process and identified a wide range of strategies to deliver the student support services which formed a part of Ms Campbell's duties. I am satisfied that this constitutes a genuine operational requirement precluding Ms Campbell's permanent appointment to the higher classification position. [39] Ms Campbell submits that the Respondent should have considered other AO4 roles which might be available for placement. This is not a requirement of a decision regarding a higher classification position. The decision-maker was not required to consider whether there were other roles the same or substantially similar which may be available for conversion. The decision-maker was required to consider whether Ms Campbell should be permanently appointed to the position she had been temporarily appointed to. It was appropriate for Ms Campbell to be informed that she would be returning to her substantive position when the temporary role ended on 12 December 2025. [40] Ms Campbell's fifth ground of appeal is dismissed. -- 8 of 10 -- 9 Sixth Ground of Appeal: The decision-maker did not correctly balance the s 120(4) factors [41] Ms Campbell says that the decision acknowledges that she is suitable for the role, had been acting for more than one-year and met all eligibility requirements. Ms Campbell says that the final conclusion reached by the decision-maker did not: properly weigh the ongoing operational need; consider risk to students or continuity; provide evidence of structural change and relied on future predictions rather than documented facts. [42] The Respondent acknowledges that Ms Campbell is suitable to perform the role, however, says that at the time of the decision (and now) there is no continuing need for Ms Campbell to be employed in the role beyond 12 December 2025. [43] The Respondent says that the decision was not based on 'future predictions' but rather a factual circumstance which is not evidence by the fact of Ms Campbell having returned to her substantive role as of 13 December 2025. The sixth ground of appeal is dismissed [44] For all of the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the decision maker properly considered the factors required by s 120 of the PS Act and the Directive. It was fair and reasonable for the decision-maker to accept the information provided by Nambour State College regarding the Strategic Plan and its restructured approach to providing student support services and to determine that this was a genuine operational requirement precluding Ms Campbell's permanent appointment to the role. [45] I do not accept that the decision was based on 'future predictions' or that any impact on students was not considered by the school in its planning. Ms Campbell says that she was not provided with 'documented facts', however at the time she received the decision which cited the Four-Year Strategic Plan, it was open to her to seek a copy of this plan or to ask the school leadership team for information. The Respondent was not required to provide additional documents to Ms Campbell to support its decision. Conclusion [46] In considering Ms Campbell's request for appointment at the higher classification level position on a permanent basis, the decision-maker was required to have regard to: Ms Campbell's suitability to perform the role; the genuine operational requirements of the Department; and the reasons for each decision previously made in relation to Ms Campbell during her period of acting in the higher classification.11 I am satisfied that the decision-maker has done each of these things and that the decision communicates this to Ms Campbell. 11 PS Act s 120(3) and 120(4). -- 9 of 10 -- 10 [47] I have considered each of Ms Campbell's grounds of appeal. I note that the Respondent provided detailed submissions and supporting documents in response to Ms Campbell's appeal. Ms Campbell chose not to provide any further reply. [48] For the reasons given above, I find that the decision was fair and reasonable. Order [49] I make the following order: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 10 of 10 --