Bradshaw v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 104

1 QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Bradshaw v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2025] QIRC 104 PARTIES: Bradshaw, Candise (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2024/138 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a conversion decision DELIVERED ON: 23 April 2025 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Dwyer IC On the papers ORDER: The decision appealed against is confirmed CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – appeal against conversion decision – where appellant requested permanent appointment to a higher classification – where conversion request was rejected – where the respondent relies on its genuine operational requirements as the basis for rejection – whether decision fair and reasonable – decision fair and reasonable LEGISLATION: Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B, s 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 120 -- 1 of 16 -- 2 CASES: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10 Goodall v State of Queensland [2018] QSC 319 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Tollesson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 69 Reasons for Decision Background [1] Ms Candise Bradshaw is employed by the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service ('the respondent'). She is currently in the substantive position of Nurse Unit Manager, Blood Borne Virus and Sexual Health, which is classified under the 'Nurses and Midwives (Queensland Health) Award – State 2015' as a Nurse Grade 7 ('NRG7'). Ms Bradshaw's acting role [2] Since 6 June 2022, Ms Bradshaw has acted in the position of Director of Nursing at Eventide Home Rockhampton under a series of temporary contracts classified at Nurse Grade 10 ('NRG10'). Her engagement at the higher classification level was extended nine times. [3] By way of antecedent only, in November 2023 Ms Bradshaw suffered a workplace injury and was absent from the workplace at all times material to this appeal. Notwithstanding her absence, Ms Bradshaw continued to be engaged temporarily at the NRG10 level. Further, since the filing of this appeal, Ms Bradshaw has been further extended in this acting role through until at least January 2025.1 [4] The chronology of events relevant to this appeal is relatively complex and involves three separate processes that impacted on Ms Bradshaw's acting role. It is necessary to describe each of them. The cultural review (first process) [5] In February 2024 the respondent engaged an external consultancy (Evexia) to conduct a cultural review of the workplace ('the cultural review'). According to the respondent Evexia was appointed to "undertake a culture review to gauge the psychological safety 1 Appellant’s reply submissions filed 18 October 2024 (at paragraph 16). -- 2 of 16 -- 3 and wellbeing of the workforce and to better understand emerging dysfunctional team dynamics to determine actional support and intervention strategies".2 [6] While little detail is provided by the parties, it would appear from the facts that this review took a typical course and was undertaken over the period February to July 2024. It concluded with the delivery of a report on 16 July 2024 that included recommendations about inter alia organisational change. The opening of the permanent NRG10 vacancy (second process) [7] On 4 May 2024 the substantive employee relinquished the NRG10 role (after being absent for a period of three years). As a consequence of this permanent vacancy arising the respondent embarked on commencing the process to recruit a permanent replacement to the role. It appears that this process was commenced without any consideration of the possible consequences, for example, organisational restructure that might reasonably be anticipated to arise from the cultural review. [8] Because the (former) substantive position holder had been in the role for 14 years, the preparation for recruitment apparently involved a detailed review of the role description and duties to ensure that they were up to date. An updated role description was not complete until 11 June 2024. [9] Despite the effort applied to this task over a period of 5 weeks, by late June 2024 it seems that there was a decision made to suspend recruitment to allow Ms Bradshaw to request permanent appointment to the role in accordance with her rights pursuant to section 120 of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'). Invitation to request permanent appointment (third process) [10] On 27 June 2024, the Acting Director of Nursing, Aged Care Clinical Rehabilitation Services, Ms Helen Burgess, advised Ms Bradshaw by way of email correspondence that: a. the permanent NRG10 role Ms Bradshaw had been acting in was available for recruitment; and b. if Ms Bradshaw did not request conversion by 1 July 2024, the role would be advertised externally. [11] On 28 June 2024, Ms Bradshaw formally requested conversion to the NRG10 role pursuant to section 120 of the PS Act. The respondent was then required to make a decision within 28 days, i.e. by 26 July 2024.3 2 Respondent’s submissions filed 20 September 2024 (at paragraph 18). 3 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 120(2). -- 3 of 16 -- 4 [12] Again, it appears that the respondent invited Ms Bradshaw to make the request for permanent appointment without any regard to the possible consequences of the cultural review that was being contemporaneously conducted. The cultural review report [13] On 16 July 2024, Evexia delivered their report (with recommendations) to the respondent. The recommendations included a possible organisational restructure. As a consequence of these recommendations the respondent decided to put permanent recruitment in the relevant workplace on hold. Permanent appointment to higher duties decision [14] On 26 July 2024, within the required period prescribed by the PS Act, the respondent advised Ms Bradshaw that her request for permanent conversion to the higher classification NRG10 role had been denied ('the decision'). That is the decision which is the subject of the appeal. [15] The reasons for the decision provided by the respondent reveals Ms Bradshaw's request for conversion to a higher classification was declined on the basis of genuine operational requirements and cites section 120 of the PS Act and the Queensland Government directive – Directive 03/23 Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level ('the Directive'). [16] The reasons relevantly provide: At this time, the genuine operational requirements of Eventide do not support your permanent employment to the DON position. Significantly, following the finalisation of the Eventide Culture Review, a number of recommendations have been proposed and it is my intention to facilitate an evaluation of the service structure to ensure that Eventide can continue to provide great care for Central Queenslanders. While work is undertaken to design and consult on any changes that come from the evaluation, including possible impacts to the role in question, permanent recruitment to the DON position at Eventide has been put on hold. (Emphasis added) [17] Ms Bradshaw filed an Appeal Notice on 16 August 2024. Nature of appeal [18] Under Chapter 11 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act'), the role of the Commission is to review the decision appealed against.4 The IR Act does not define the 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B. -- 4 of 16 -- 5 term 'review'. The term 'review' will take its meaning from the context in which it appears.5 [19] An appeal under Chapter 11 of the IR Act is not a rehearing of the matter,6 but rather, it is a review of the decision and the decision-making process.7 The role of the Commission in such an appeal is to decide whether the decision appealed against was fair and reasonable.8 [20] It follows that the issue for determination in this appeal is whether the decision to refuse to permanently appoint Ms Bradshaw to the higher classification NRG10 role was fair and reasonable. What decisions can the Commission 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. 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. Relevant sections of the PS Act [22] Section 120 of the PS Act provides: 120 Employee may request employment at higher classification level after 1 of continuous acting or secondment (1) If the public sector employee has been acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level for a continuous period of at least 1 year, the employee may ask the employee's chief executive to employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis, after— (a) the end of 1 year of acting at, or being seconded to, the higher classification level; and (b) the end of each subsequent 1-year period. (2) The employee's chief executive must decide the request within the required period. 5 Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10. 6 Goodall v State of Queensland (Unreported decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Dalton J, 10 October 2018), 5. 7 Ibid. 8 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 562B(3). -- 5 of 16 -- 6 (3) The employee's chief executive may decide to employ the employee in the position at the higher classification level on a permanent basis only if the chief executive considers the employee is suitable to perform the role. (4) In making the decision, the employee's chief executive must have regard to— (a) the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity; and (b) the reasons for each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the person during the person 's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. (5) If the employee's chief executive decides to refuse the request, the chief executive must give the employee a notice stating— (a) the reasons for the decision; and (b) the total continuous period for which the employee has been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level in the public sector entity; and (c) how many times the employee's acting arrangement or secondment has been extended; and (d) each decision previously made, or taken to have been made, under this section in relation to the employee during the employee's continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level. (6) … (7) … (8) in this section— continuous period, in relation to an employee acting at, or seconded to, a higher classification level, has the meaning given under a directive. required period, for making a decision under subsection (2), means— (a) the period stated in an industrial instrument within which the decision must be made; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—28 days after the request is made. suitable, in relation to an employee performing a role, has the meaning given under a directive. Suitable, in relation to an employee performing a role, has the meaning given under a directive. (Emphasis added) The parties' contentions -- 6 of 16 -- 7 [23] The parties filed written submissions in accordance with a Directions Order dated 21 August 2024. The appeal has been dealt with on the papers. The respondent's submissions [24] The respondent's submissions filed 20 September 2024 contend that genuine operational requirements preclude Ms Bradshaw's employment from being converted to the higher classification NRG10 role. In summary, it was submitted that: a. on 5 February 2024, a Workplace Culture Psychological Safety Review (the cultural review report) was commissioned for the Eventide Home Rockhampton, to be conducted by Evexia; b. on 4 May 2024, the NRG10 role had become permanently vacant such that, at the time of Ms Bradshaw's application for conversation, it was the Respondent's intention to progress the recruitment process; c. on 16 July 2024, the respondent received the findings of the cultural review report. The findings highlighted "significant concerns about the suitability of the existing organisational structure" which appears to be "affecting the operation of the facility". It also made several recommendations, including the redesign and restructure of the broader leadership team. d. the recruitment process was placed on hold because the respondent was uncertain as to the impacts that "likely" changes to the overall structure of the organisation would have on the classification of the NRG10 role; and e. progressing with the recruitment process in light of such uncertainty, would not align with the statutory obligation to manage public resources efficiently and responsibly, noting the costs associated with the cultural review report. [25] Taken together, the respondent contends that the cultural review report indicates that the NRG10 role may be operationally unnecessary moving forward, and that Ms Bradshaw's conversion application was denied on the basis of genuine operational requirements. [26] The respondent's submissions of 20 September 2024 state that it is in the process of preparing a summary report that highlights the key findings of the cultural review report in a deidentified format (to protect the confidential nature of its contents).9 The summary report was not shared with the Commission by either party. [27] The respondent conceded that, contrary to the requirements of section 120(5) of the PS Act, there were several omissions in its decision, namely the details as to the length of 9 Respondent’s submissions filed 20 September 2024 (at paragraph 26). -- 7 of 16 -- 8 time Ms Bradshaw had been acting in the NRG10 role and the number of times she had been extended in the role. [28] The respondent’s submissions further stated that Ms Bradshaw was (and is) suitable to perform the NRG10 role on a permanent basis. However, the respondent rejects the submission that it is required by section 120(5) of the PS Act to address the suitability of an applicant in a decision to refuse a conversion request based on genuine occupational requirements. Consequently, the respondent submitted it was not required to address Ms Bradshaw's suitability for the permanent NRG10 role given that her conversion request was refused on the basis of genuine operational requirements. Ms Bradshaw's submissions [29] The submissions filed 18 October 2024 by Ms Bradshaw largely canvas the same propositions set out in her Appeal Notice. It was submitted that: a. section 120(1) of the PS Act requires a worker be acting at a higher classification level for a continuous period of at least a year before asking to be converted on a permanent basis. Accordingly, Ms Bradshaw has acted at a higher classification level for over two years; b. the respondent indicated an intention to advertise the NRG10 role for permanent fulfilment in the correspondence of 27 June 2024; c. given the NRG10 role was permanently filled when the cultural review commenced, Ms Bradshaw should be granted permanency in the role while the review process continues; d. the findings of the cultural review or a summary of those findings have not been supplied to Ms Bradshaw in the course of these proceedings; e. if the respondent intended on commencing a review in accordance with Clause 75.2 of the Nurses and Midwives (Queensland Health and Department of Education) Certified Agreement (EB11) 2022, the Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union should have been advised, as the respondent has detailed, a structural change may occur as a result of the review; f. the NRG10 role is a budgeted vacant position which is expected to continue, and the respondent has not provided any detail that the structure of Eventide Home Rockhampton or the NRG10 role will significantly change; g. the respondent provided conflicting reasons as to why Ms Bradshaw would be unable to perform the NRG10 role beyond 30 June 2024. Ms Bradshaw alleges the reasons conflict in the following way: -- 8 of 16 -- 9 i. the correspondence of 27 June 2024 specified Ms Bradshaw's contract would not be extended if she did not apply for conversion by 1 July 2024 because the permanent NRG10 role would be advertised externally; and ii. in the decision, Ms Bradshaw's conversion application was stated to be rejected on the basis that the advertising of the position was put on hold due to the Eventide Culture Review. h. there was no genuine operational requirement to prevent conversion at the time Ms Bradshaw made her request for conversion to the NRG10 role; i. Ms Burgess' email correspondence of 27 June 2024 only provided Ms Bradshaw one business days' notice to request conversion before her temporary contract was due to cease on 1 July 2024, and, until receiving the email correspondence, Ms Bradshaw was "completely unaware of the need to request conversion"; and j. Ms Bradshaw expected to have her contracts in the temporary NRG10 role extended and thus continue higher duties until her return to work because: i. her previous temporary NRG10 contracts were extended while she was on unpaid leave with the respondent and receiving WorkCover; and ii. she was on authorised leave in accordance with clause 8.3 of the Directive. [30] In summary, Ms Bradshaw submits that the respondent's decision not to convert her to the permanent NRG10 role was due to Ms Bradshaw being on leave, and not due to there being a need, or an absence of a need, to advertise the role. Further, as Ms Bradshaw is a suitable employee for the role, the respondent did not have reason to reject her conversion application. [31] Additionally, Ms Bradshaw argues that on a proper reading of sub-sections 120(3) and 120(4) of the PS Act in conjunction with the meaning of 'suitable' contained in the Directive, it is compulsory to consider the suitability of an employee to perform higher duties on a permanent basis. Consideration Technical deficiencies in the decision [32] Because such submissions are all too common, it ought to be made clear that evidence of a failure by a decision maker to conform with the express terms of a statute or directive will not, of itself, render a decision unfair and unreasonable. Whether it does or does not -- 9 of 16 -- 10 will depend entirely on the circumstances in which the omission has arisen, and whether it has given rise to any objective unfairness and unreasonableness. [33] The failure by the respondent to, for example, include advice in this decision as to how long Ms Bradshaw had been acting in the role is a trivial omission. No submission (beyond identifying the technical failing) has been made to suggest otherwise. Further, the assertions about suitability made by Ms Bradshaw's representatives are misconceived in circumstances where there has never been any dispute as to Ms Bradshaw's suitability for the role. Indeed, the opposite might have been confidently inferred by the invitation extended to Ms Bradshaw in June 2024 to formally request permanent appointment to the role. [34] The cited genuine operational requirements were the only reason relied on by the decision maker. The failure to address or otherwise comment on suitability was plainly because Ms Bradshaw's suitability had nothing to do with the decision. To the extent suitability was required to be addressed but was not, it is yet another trivial omission with no impact on the fairness or reasonableness of the decision. [35] In any event, the respondent has categorically confirmed Ms Bradshaw's suitability.10 [36] For completeness I am not inclined to accept any assertion that Ms Bradshaw's absence on sick leave played any role in the decision and nor would I give such a serious allegation any consideration in this appeal. The role of the Commission in considering public sector appeals is to review a decision. The task requires inter alia an analysis of evidence relied on by a decision maker and whether, on that evidence, the decision reached was fair and reasonable. The task does not extend to considering speculative serious allegations as to alternative theories for why a decision might actually have been made. [37] The meekly made submission in this instance suggests it has simply been included as grist for the mill given the circumstantial coincidence of Ms Bradshaw's absence and the refusal. Given the expertise of Ms Bradshaw's representatives, I would have no doubt that if they genuinely held a view that Ms Bradshaw had been refused permanent appointment for a proscribed reason, they would have pursued the remedies available in different proceedings.11 [38] In the particular circumstances of this matter, it is acknowledged by the respondent that the decision letter does not comply with section 120(5) of the PS Act. There is absolutely no submission or evidence, that could lead me to objectively conclude that any of the technical omissions have rendered the decision unfair and unreasonable. 10 Respondent’s submissions filed 20 September 2024 (at paragraph 34). 11 See Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ch 8 pt 1. -- 10 of 16 -- 11 The respondent's confused messaging to Ms Bradshaw [39] The real unfairness in this matter arises from the confused messaging of the respondent to Ms Bradshaw. [40] The timeline in this matter reveals that the three parallel processes identified earlier in the reasons were underway between February and July 2024. Because of a combination of rigid adherence to process and an apparent failure by management to contemplate the impact of related processes, Ms Bradshaw received mixed messages apt to confuse any reasonable person. It is the combination of these failings that has caused Ms Bradshaw to develop an impression that the decision is unfair. [41] It is useful here to reidentify and more pointedly consider the three processes. The three processes unfolding in that period were: i. the cultural review; ii. the recruitment process to permanently fill the role Ms Bradshaw was acting in; and iii. the request for employment at a higher classification pursuant to section 120 of the PS Act. i. the cultural review [42] The first of these processes (chronologically) was the cultural review which commenced in February 2024. Such a process typically ends, as it did in this matter, with a written report and recommendations to remedy any identified problems. [43] While it is not entirely clear from either parties' submissions, the cultural review process in this matter must have included a review of the NRG10 role or at least, must have had some potential impact on it. What is clear is that there is no dispute between the parties that the cultural review was conducted between February and July 2024. [44] The report by Evexia was delivered on 16 July 2024. The report is said to contain a series of recommendations regarding the existing organisational structure in Ms Bradshaw's workplace. [45] There is little in the submissions to explain the somewhat erratic decision making of the respondent that occurred with respect to the other process undertaken during the course of the cultural review. But from the material before me, the delivery of the report on 16 July 2024 seems to have catastrophically collided with the progression of the second and third processes. The impact of this collision is discussed later in these reasons. ii. the recruitment process -- 11 of 16 -- 12 [46] The second process commenced in May 2024 was the initiation of the recruitment for the permanent role in which Ms Bradshaw had been acting. [47] As I noted earlier, it would seem that the numerous considerations that applied to this second process (recruitment) do not appear to have extended to any consideration as to how the process might be impacted by the first process (the cultural review) that was already underway. It seems that no thought was given to, for instance, consulting with Evexia to obtain some feedback in the form of a preliminary opinion as to whether the recruitment process could or should be started at that time given that a (directly relevant) review was underway. [48] Instead, it seems the recruitment process was simply initiated because a directive required it when the substantive position holder relinquished the role. To the extent it is necessary for me to do so, it appears to me that this failing by the respondent (above all others) gave rise to the circumstances triggering this appeal. [49] By 11 June 2024 the recruitment process had progressed to the point where the role description had been reviewed, updated, and finalised. But then, for reasons that are unclear, the third process was commenced. iii . the request for permanent appointment [50] The third process commenced on 27 June 2024 when the respondent invited Ms Bradshaw to make an application pursuant to section 120 of the PS Act for permanent appointment to the role. With a grand total of three days' notice, Ms Bradshaw (who was absent on workers' compensation) was invited to make her request for permanent appointment by 1 July 2024 and advised that if she did not, the recruitment process would commence. [51] While it is not expressly stated by the respondent, it would appear the respondent was prepared to temporarily suspend the recruitment process to allow Ms Bradshaw to make her application and for them to consider it. Yet again, it appears no one was considering the possible consequences for the NRG10 role arising out of the (directly relevant) cultural review contemporaneously taking place. [52] Ms Bradshaw made her application for permanent appointment on 28 June 2024 which then enlivened the third process and compelled the respondent to make a decision about the request for permanent appointment by 26 July 2024.12 The catastrophic collision 12 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 120(2). -- 12 of 16 -- 13 [53] On the material before me it seems that the respondent set the wheels in motion on the cultural review in February 2024, but then simply carried on as usual with respect to recruitment within the very workplace that it had just hired external consultants to review. It is almost as if the respondent was not able to anticipate that such a review would inevitably lead to the exact type of recommendations that were ultimately made by Evexia in July 2024. [54] I do not consider this is a view attained through hindsight. In my view, a prudent manager, conscious that such a review report was pending, would surely have thought to suspend permanent recruitment within the workplace under review until the report was furnished. Alternatively, it is entirely commonplace to seek interim reporting from a consultant to assist with interim decision making about permanent recruitment. [55] If any of this was done, there is no reference to it in the material before me. But the chronology of events would suggest that none of these steps were taken to safeguard against exactly the situation that now gives rise to this appeal. Further, if there was some cogent reason it did not occur, it is not explained. [56] Having commenced preparation for recruitment (second process) in May 2024, and then suspending that to allow Ms Bradshaw to apply for permanent appointment (third process) in June 2024, the cultural review report (first process) virtually 'crashed in' over the top of these processes on 16 July 2024 (seemingly without warning) and altered the workplace landscape. [57] The effect of the cultural review report recommendations from Evexia was to entirely eclipse the second and third process. In particular, the recommendations apparently include an organisational review which might involve the elimination of the NRG10 role in which Ms Bradshaw has been acting. As a consequence of this recommendation, the respondent (finally) decided to impose a freeze on recruitment to the role pending consideration, consultation, and implementation of any changes to the organisational structure. [58] A direct consequence of this decision was that recruitment (second process) was abandoned, and Ms Bradshaw's request for permanent appointment (third process) was refused. It is the outcome and consequences of the organisational review that the respondent relies on as 'genuine operational requirements' to refuse Ms Bradshaw's request. Genuine operational requirements [59] As an opening aside on this issue I note that in relying on the cultural review report recommendations, the respondent did not provide a copy of the report to Ms Bradshaw to assist in the explanation for its decision. That is entirely understandable given that it -- 13 of 16 -- 14 no doubt contains sensitive content that may pertain to individual personnel or operational matters. [60] What is less easily understood is the failure to furnish Ms Bradshaw with a precis of the report recommendations, or an extract of the relevant parts (with redactions if necessary). Additionally, in defending this appeal the respondent has not even supplied the Commission with a copy of the review report (redacted or otherwise), or even a properly detailed precis. [61] It is submitted by the respondent that (as at 20 September 2024) their intention was to prepare a summary and distribute it to relevant stakeholders, including Ms Bradshaw.13 I am not aware as to whether this has occurred or how informative the summary might be. [62] The absence of adequate reasons can lead to a conclusion that a decision is unfair and unreasonable.14 Additionally, a respondent defending a decision in an appeal of this nature ought to ensure that all evidence and information relied on by the decision maker is before the Commission. A failure to do so could conceivably give rise to the Commission finding a decision is unfair and unreasonable simply for want of evidence to support it. [63] I have carefully considered whether I ought to return this matter to the decision maker for those reasons but, for reasons that follow, I have decided not to. [64] In my view the invitation from Ms Burgess to Ms Bradshaw to apply for permanent appointment to the role almost certainly caused her to be misled, albeit unintentionally. It would be entirely reasonable for Ms Bradshaw to have anticipated that the invitation to request permanent appointment was an indication that she had some prospects of success. Then, within four weeks of having her hopes raised in this way, her request was refused via a decision that arguably contained inadequate reasons. [65] While I am roundly unimpressed with the inept handling of this matter by the respondent, I am ultimately inclined to take a practical approach. Moreover, it is the decision that is under review, not the treatment of Ms Bradshaw preceding it. While I accept that the poor handling of the three processes was unfair and unreasonable to Ms Bradshaw, I am concerned only with the fairness and reasonableness of the decision. [66] What will constitute adequate reasons in a decision will differ from case to case. While I am not fortunate enough to have the details of the recommendations in the cultural review report before me to fully evaluate them, I am prepared (on this occasion) to accept the 13 Respondent’s submissions filed 20 September 2024 (at paragraph 26). 14 See Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 27B. See also Tollesson v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2024] QIRC 69. -- 14 of 16 -- 15 very brief description provided by the respondent in its submissions.15 It seems to me that those recommendations are entirely consistent with what one might expect from a cultural review. [67] The only question then left to answer is whether the respondent's desire to consider and possibly implement the recommendations of the cultural review report amounts to a genuine operational requirement. [68] The phrase 'genuine operational requirements of the department' is not defined in the PS Act or the Directive. The phrase was considered in Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) ('Morison'),16 where Merrell DP stated: [37] The phrase 'genuine operational requirements of the department' is not defined in the PS Act or in the Directive. As a consequence, that phrase must take its meaning from the words used in it and the context in which it appears in the PS Act; and consideration of the context includes surrounding provisions, what may be drawn from other aspects of the instrument, the instrument as a whole and it extends to what the instrument seeks to remedy. The same considerations apply to the construction of the same phrase in cl 6.2(a) of the Directive. [38] The adjective 'genuine' relevantly means '… being truly such; real; authentic.' The phrase 'operational requirements of the department' is obviously a broad term that permits a consideration of many matters depending upon the particular circumstances of the department at a particular time. In considering the context of section 149C(4A)(a) of the PS Act, the chief executive of a department, under the PS Act, is responsible for, amongst other things: • managing the department in a way that promotes the effective, efficient and appropriate management of public resources; • planning human resources, including ensuring the employment in the department of persons on a fixed term temporary or casual basis occurs only if there is a reason for the basis of employment under the PS Act. (Emphasis added) [69] I am satisfied that the task of considering and possibly implementing the cultural review report recommendations is a genuine operational requirement. In those circumstances it follows that I consider the decision to be fair and reasonable. Conclusion [70] While I have some sympathy for Ms Bradshaw, I consider her sense of grievance is misplaced. The existence of the cultural review was never in dispute. It is almost always the case that such reviews result in some degree of change within a workplace. 15 Respondent’s submissions filed 20 September 2024 (at paragraph 2 5, 38-39). 16 [2020] QIRC 203. Note the decision in Morison concerned s 149C of the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) (now repealed) but the language is not materially different to Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 120. -- 15 of 16 -- 16 Ultimately, I would have expected that Ms Bradshaw (and those advising her) to have more readily accepted this reality, however inconvenient the timing might have been for her. [71] The failings of the respondent in its management of the various processes impacting Ms Bradshaw between February and July 2024 are extensive. These failings have plainly unfairly impacted upon Ms Bradshaw in a way that would reasonably give rise to acute disappointment. Indeed, it is precisely the type of bungling that can give rise to psychological injuries and litigation. [72] Notwithstanding the poor management of the matter by the respondent it does not materially undermine the decision, and I am ultimately satisfied that the decision under review is fair and reasonable. [73] In all of the circumstances I intend to confirm the decision under review. Order The decision appealed against is confirmed. -- 16 of 16 --