Dallmann v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) [2025] QIRC 244

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION PARTIES: Dallmann v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) [2025] QIRC 244 Dallmann, Patrick (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2025/102 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a fair treatment decision DELIVERED ON: 9 September 2025 DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Appeal Notice (30 May 2025) Respondent's submissions (16 June 2025) Appellant's submissions in reply (30 June 2025) MEMBER: Pidgeon IC HEARD AT: On the papers ORDERS: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(c) of the IR Act, the decision appealed against, being the email from Mr Anastasi dated 12 May 2025 be set aside. 2. The matter be returned to the decision- maker with a copy of these reasons for decision. 3. The Respondent is to provide Mr Dallmann with a response to Recommendations – Outcome Advice (5 February 2025) within 21-days of the release of this decision. -- 1 of 6 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – appeal against a fair treatment decision – where the appellant appeals a decision of the respondent's review of his role description – consideration of whether a decision is fair and reasonable – where the decision appealed against is set aside pursuant to s 562C(c) of the IR Act – where the decision is returned to the decision-maker – where the Respondent is directed to provide the Appellant with a response to the recommendations within 21-days of receipt of this decision LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562C Reasons for Decision Background [1] Mr Patrick Dallmann ('the Appellant') is employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Fire Department) ('the Respondent'). Mr Dallmann appeals the decision to amend his substantive role as Executive Manager, Information Management. [2] Mr Dallmann is currently on secondment as the Data Policy Lead within the Data and Artificial Intelligence Directorate at the Department of Customer Services, Open Data and Small Business Family Business. He has been on secondment from April 2024 and is set to remain in this role until October 2025.1 [3] I requested the parties attend the Commission for a conference earlier today.2 The purpose of the conference was not to hear submissions on the appeal or attempt to conciliate the matter. I was interested to hear from the parties as to whether, given the nature of the matter, there may be value in making orders which may bring about some finality for the parties in what has the potential to be an ongoing dispute. At the conclusion of the conference I determined that the best way forward is for me to set aside the decision of 12 May 2025, return the matter to the decision-maker with a copy of these reasons and order that a response be provided within 21-days of the release of this decision. 1 Appeal Notice, Schedule 1, 1. 2 In attendance at the conference were Mr Dallmann and Messrs Croft, Staier and Levin on behalf of the Respondent. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 The decision dated 12 May 2025 [4] Mr Dallmann appeals the decision of Mr Andy Anastasi ('the decision-maker') dated 12 May 2025. Mr Anastasi states:3 Dear Patrick I am writing in response to your email dated 9 May 2025 regarding the review of the Role Description and the associated recommendations from the evaluation conducted on 5 February 2025. The Role Descriptions team has completed their assessment and confirmed that the proposed changes constitute less than 30% of the role's scope. Consequently, a reclassification is not required. Additionally, the team has determined that the inclusion of specific technology platforms supported by the business unit is unnecessary within the AO8 Position Description. Given that the technical accountabilities fall under the purview of the AO7 role managing the team, it is deemed more appropriate for these responsibilities to be reflected in the AO7 Position Descriptions. This conclusion was reached and confirmed during the Role Descriptions evaluation process. Role Descriptions have also proposed the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this process further. Regarding your comment on the “omission of organisational change consultation,” I would like to clarify that a prior consultation had not occurred concerning the Power Platform responsibilities and the Role Descriptions evaluation. As such, it was essential for us to discuss this matter, which we did on 24 February 2025. The Role Description provided to you reflects the outcome of that consultation and the subsequent evaluation by the Role Descriptions team. If you believe I have provided incorrect information during the review process, I formally request that you provide additional details to substantiate your concerns. Patrick, if you feel that my responses are not addressing your concerns or providing the closure you seek, I recommend escalating the matter further. I do not wish to continue engagement where you feel I am not being honest, nor do I wish to engage in an environment where you continue to question my integrity. From my perspective, and based on the established processes, I am confident that you have been appropriately engaged in alignment with the expectations of the Role Description. Regarding the Artificial Intelligence Governance and Framework functionality, it is important to note that this has not been determined as a long-term function of the Web, Data, and Information Management position. This matter will be addressed separately. Response to Recommendations – Outcome Advice (5 February 2025) 1. Recommendation: That changes to your Role Description be paused until the outcome of the grievance is reached. Response: Changes to the Role Description were sought as part of the consultation regarding Power Platform responsibilities. No further changes to the Role Description are anticipated. 3 Appeal Notice, Decision Letter. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 2. Recommendation: That a re-assessment of the impact of the changes on your role be conducted by comparing the proposed Role Description with the 2018 Role Description to determine whether the role should be submitted for a formal job evaluation. Response: The Role Descriptions team has completed a comparison of the 2018 Role Description, the previously proposed Role Description, and the updated Role Description following the Power Platform consultation. This action is now closed. 3. Recommendation: That the outcome of the assessment be communicated to you. Response: The updated Role Description, based on the evaluation, has been completed by the Role Descriptions team. You have been offered the opportunity to meet with a member of the team to address any questions. This action is now closed. 4. Recommendation: That if the changes to your role are considered less than 30%, the decision be accompanied by an explanation of how this assessment was made, including how the proposed responsibilities relating to web and data functions align with the accountabilities outlined in the 2018 Role Description. Response: The Role Descriptions team has confirmed that, based on their assessment, there is no requirement to proceed with a reclassification. Appeal principles [5] Section 562B of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('the IR Act') provides that the appeal is to be decided by 'reviewing the decision appealed against' and that 'the purpose of the appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable'.4 [6] In deciding this appeal, s 562C(1) of the IR Act provides that the Commission may: (a) confirm the decision appealed against; or … (c) For another appeal – set the decision aside, and substitute another decision or return the matter to the decision maker with a copy of the decision on appeal and any directions considered appropriate. Consideration [7] Annexed to Mr Dallmann's Appeal notice is a four-page attachment detailing his reasons for appeal. One of those reasons for appeal is that 'the QFS decision on 12/05/2025 is unreasonable because it lacks justification and does not follow the recommendations set out in the Internal Review Report'. [8] The decision of 12 May 2025 was communicated by way of an email and is set out above at [4]. I have considered the responses Mr Dallmann received to each of the recommendations of the internal review completed on 5 February 2025. [9] With regard to the response provided to Recommendation 1, it appears that changes to the Role Description were paused until an outcome was reached. On Thursday 24 April 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3). -- 4 of 6 -- 5 2025, Mr Anastasi wrote to Mr Dallman providing an outcome of the review of the Role Description. It seems to me that reviewing and updating the Role Description were necessary steps arising from the Outcome Advice of 5 February 2025 as the second recommendation in that Outcome Advice required a comparison of the proposed Role Description with the 2018 Role Description to determine whether the role should be submitted for a formal job evaluation. [10] With regard to the response provided to Recommendation 2, it appears that Mr Dallmann's initial concern was that the re-assessment of the impact of changes on his role was initially conducted by comparing the previously proposed Role Description with the updated Role Description. Mr Dallmann had said that it was necessary to compare the 2018 Role Description and the updated Role Description. The response provided in Mr Anastasi's email of 12 May 2025 confirms that the Role Descriptions team completed a comparison of the 2018 Role Description, the previously proposed Role Description and the updated Role Description. In circumstances where Mr Dallmann had been concerned the 2018 Role Description did not form part of the comparison, I am satisfied that this recommendation has been met and it was fair and reasonable for Mr Anastasi to communicate this information in the way that he did. [11] Recommendation 3 was that the outcome of the assessment be communicated to Mr Dallmann. Mr Anastasi confirms that the updated Role Description has been provided to Mr Dallmann and that Mr Dallmann has been offered the opportunity to meet with a member of the team to address questions. There is nothing before me to suggest that this did not occur or was not a fair approach to take. [12] Recommendation 4 of the Internal Review stated that if changes to Mr Dallmann's role are considered less than 30%, the decision be accompanied by an explanation of how this assessment was made. More specifically, Recommendation 4 provided that the explanation would include how the proposed responsibilities relating to web and data functions align with the accountabilities outlined in the 2018 Role Description. [13] It is clear that Mr Anastasi's email of 12 May 2025 does not provide such an explanation. There is certainly not enough information provided to indicate to Mr Dallmann how the assessment was made. Mr Dallman is simply told, in the second paragraph of the email, that the team had completed an assessment and confirmed that the proposed changes constitute less than 30% of the role's scope, and that on that basis a reclassification was not required. [14] Mr Anastasi's decision is not fair and reasonable as it relates to the response provided to Mr Dallmann regarding Recommendation 4 of the internal review. It is not possible for Mr Dallmann to properly assess whether his various submissions about the unfairness of that decision are valid when he does not have an explanation of how the decision came about. -- 5 of 6 -- 6 [15] It may be that after receiving an explanation which addresses the matters set out in Recommendation 4, Mr Dallmann remains dissatisfied with the decision that a reclassification of the role is not required. However, those reasons will assist Mr Dallmann in considering whether his concerns result from a disagreement with the outcome, or whether he maintains that the decision is not fair and reasonable. [16] The Respondent submits that it considered whether the changes to Mr Dallmann's role description would necessitate a requirement to conduct a Job Evaluation Management System, however, resulting from a review, it was determined by the People and Culture Directorate that a reclassification was not necessary.5 [17] It seems to me that the Respondent has undertaken this work and that the Role Descriptions team will be well-placed to readily provide an explanation of how it arrived at its decision that changes to the role are considered less than 30% and how the proposed responsibilities relating to web and data functions align with the accountabilities outlined in the 2018 Role Description. [18] I will set aside the decision of Mr Anastasi dated Monday 12 May 2025 and return the matter to the decision-maker with a copy of these reasons for decision. [19] I also direct that a fresh response to the Recommendations – Outcome Advice (5 February 2025) be provided to Mr Dallman within 21-days of this decision. Order [20] I make the following orders: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(c) of the IR Act, the decision appealed against, being the email from Mr Anastasi dated 12 May 2025 be set aside. 2. The matter be returned to the decision-maker with a copy of these reasons for decision. 3. The Respondent is to provide Mr Dallmann with a response to Recommendations – Outcome Advice (5 February 2025) within 21-days of the release of this decision. 5 Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 16 June 2025 [15]; (Attachment 7). -- 6 of 6 --