Burnside v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 344

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: PARTIES: Burnside v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 344 Burnside, Caroline (Appellant) v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (Respondent) CASE NO: PSA/2023/189 PROCEEDING: Public Sector Appeal – Appeal against a conversion decision DELIVERED ON: 29 November 2023 MEMBER: HEARD AT: Pidgeon IC On the papers OUTCOME: 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is set aside. 2. The decision is substituted with a decision that Ms Burnside is to be appointed to the position at the higher classification. CATCHWORDS: PUBLIC SECTOR – EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY – PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL – where the appellant is substantively employed by the respondent as an Allied Health Assistant (CA3) – where the appellant acts at the higher classification level of as an Advanced Allied Health Assistant (CA4) – where the appellant’s request for permanent appointment at the higher classification was rejected – where the respondent relies on its genuine operational requirements – consideration of the respondent’s genuine operational requirements – decision not fair and reasonable – decision set -- 1 of 15 -- 2 aside and substituted – appellant appointed at the higher classification level LEGISLATION AND OTHERINSTRUMENTS: Department of Premier and Cabinet Employment Security Policy s 4 Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562C Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 4, 120, 129, 131, 133 Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level (Directive 03/23) cl 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 CASES: Burnside v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2023] QIRC 081 Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 317 Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women) [2020] QIRC 203 Reasons for Decision Introduction [1] Ms Caroline Burnside (‘the Appellant’) is substantively employed by the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) (‘the Respondent’) as an Allied Health Assistant (CA3), Allied Health Speech Pathology, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, on a permanent full-time basis. Ms Burnside commenced employment with the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (‘SCHHS’) on 25 July 2012. [2] Ms Burnside was seconded on a temporary full-time basis on 22 May 2017, acting at a higher classification level, into a temporarily-funded role as an Advanced Allied Health Assistant (CA4) within Allied Health Community Chronic Conditions Services (‘CCCS’). [3] Ms Burnside appeals a conversion decision dated 6 September 2023 from Dr Gemma Turato, Executive Director, Allied Health, SCHHS, confirming the decision not to approve Ms Burnside’s application for conversion to the higher classification. -- 2 of 15 -- 3 Background [4] Ms Burnside first requested permanent appointment to the CA4 role on 26 July 2022. [5] The Respondent issued its decision letter to Ms Burnside on 24 August 2022 where Ms Joanne Shaw, Chief Operating Officer, conveyed the Respondent’s decision not to permanently appoint her to the role. The Respondent cited its genuine operational requirements, specifically that the role was temporarily established and funded with no recurrent funding identified. [6] Ms Burnside appealed this decision through the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 7 September 2022 and her appeal was dismissed in Burnside v State of Queensland (Queensland Health).1 [7] Ms Burnside made her current request for a review of her secondment at the higher classification level in the CA4 role on 9 August 2023. [8] Dr Turato’s decision letter was issued to Ms Burnside on 6 September 2023 and Ms Burnside appealed the decision not to appoint her to the higher classification on 27 September 2023. The 6 September 2023 decision letter [9] Dr Turato begins by explaining the key points of the decision as follows: • You are not being converted to permanent employment in the higher classification and will continue your current engagement. • The reason for this decision is that it is not viable or appropriate to convert you having regard to the genuine operational requirements which prevents your conversion at this time. • Additional information about the decision-making framework and your appeal rights is at the end of this letter. [10] Dr Turato cites the Respondent’s genuine operational requirements, explaining that the CA4 role is temporarily funded with no recurrent funding identified. Specifically, Dr Turato says that Ms Burnside’s engagement at the higher classification is for the purpose of undertaking a program of work under the Commonwealth Home Support Program (‘CHSP’) which has a specific scope of work with no recurrent funding or substantive vacancy. [11] Dr Turato proceeds to thank Ms Burnside for her performance in the role, noting her continual engagement since 22 May 2017. Dr Turato says that Ms Burnside will continue acting at the higher classification until 7 January 2024. 1 [2023] QIRC 081 (‘Burnside’). -- 3 of 15 -- 4 [12] The decision-maker concludes the letter with information about appealing the decision and accessing the Respondent’s employee assistance program. Appeal principles [13] Section 562B(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (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'. [14] Findings made in the decision which are reasonably open on the relevant material or evidence before the decision-maker should not be expected to be disturbed on appeal. [15] A public sector appeal is not an opportunity for a fresh hearing, but a review of the decision arrived at by the decision-maker. [16] 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. Legislative framework and other instruments The PS Act [17] Section 131 of the Public Sector Act 2016 (Qld) (‘the PS Act’) lists various categories of decisions against which an appeal may be made. Section 131(1)(a) provides that an appeal may be made against a conversion decision. [18] Section 129 of the PS Act relevantly provides: 129 Definitions for part In this part— conversion decision means a decision— … (e) under section 120 or 121 not to employ a public sector employee at a higher classification level, if the employee had been acting at, or seconded to, the higher classification level for a continuous period, as defined for the employee in a directive made under section 120(7), of at least 2 years. [19] Section 120 of the PS Act provides for the appointment of a public service employee to a higher classification level in the following terms: -- 4 of 15 -- 5 120 Employee may request employment at a higher classification level after 1 year 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. (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) If the employee’s chief executive does not make the decision within the required period, the chief executive is taken to have refused the request. (7) The commissioner must make a directive about employing an employee at a higher classification level under this section. (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— -- 5 of 15 -- 6 (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. [20] Section 133 of the PS Act explains who may appeal a conversion decision: 133 Who may appeal The following persons may appeal against the following decisions— (a) for a conversion decision—the public sector employee the subject of the decision The Directive [21] While all of the provisions of the Review of acting or secondment at higher classification level (Directive 03/23) (‘the Directive’) have been considered, particular attention is paid to the following provisions: 4. Principles … 4.2 Chief executives are required to act in a way that is compatible with the main purpose of this Act and how the main purpose is achieved, including fair treatment of public sector employees and maximising employment security and permanency of employment. … 7. Decision-making 7.1 When making a decision in consideration of the factors provided for in section 120(4) of the Act, a chief executive is responsible for determining the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity. Ms Burnside’s reasons for appeal [22] In a schedule to her appeal notice, Ms Burnside sets out her reasons for appeal. Ms Burnside outlines the relevant legislative provisions for her request to be appointed at the higher classification level, provides a background of her employment with the Respondent, and explains her understanding of the decision letter. [23] In support of her appeal, Ms Burnside contends: • The decision does not comply with s 120(5)(c) of the PS Act as it does not state how many times Ms Burnside’s higher duties have been extended; -- 6 of 15 -- 7 • The decision letter does not meet the purpose envisaged by s 120(5)(d) of the PS Act as it does not detail previous decisions made by the Respondent with regard to her higher duties under the now repealed Public Sector Act 2008 (Qld); • She is suitable for the role under s 120(3) of the PS Act as she has performed the role for over six years without any adverse finding in respect of her performance or conduct; • The Commonwealth Home Support Program commenced in 2015 and there is no evidence that the program will cease; and • In light of her length of service in the higher duties role and a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the Commonwealth Home Support Program will cease, Ms Burnside disputes that the Respondent has genuine operational reasons to refuse her appointment. [24] Ms Burnside seeks that the decision be substituted with a decision that she be permanently appointed to the higher classification role, saying ‘it can be clearly demonstrated that I am suitable to perform the role and there are no genuine operational reasons to hinder such an outcome’. Respondent’s submissions [25] The Respondent does not dispute Ms Burnside’s suitability to perform the role per cl 9 of the Directive but submits that the decision to refuse Ms Burnside’s permanent appointment to the higher classification ought to be upheld on the basis of its genuine operational requirements. Genuine operational requirements [26] The Respondent submits that the temporary CA4 role is entirely funded by the Department of Health through the Commonwealth Home Support Program grant agreement which is due to expire on 30 June 2024. The CA4 role has a particular purpose with a defined end date, aligns with CHSP outcomes, and is non-recurrent with no substantive vacancy against which to permanently appoint Ms Burnside. [27] Further, the Respondent explains that Ms Burnside’s temporary engagement at the higher classification is ‘intrinsically tied to the unique circumstances of the role, and does not contemplate ongoing, permanent employment’. [28] The Respondent says that the circumstances of the role are characterised by pre-defined funding with a limited timeframe, and submits that there is no reasonable expectation of this temporary arrangement transitioning to a permanent one. -- 7 of 15 -- 8 [29] With this in mind, the Respondent says that Dr Turato exercised her discretion to determine that permanently appointing Ms Burnside to the higher classification was neither viable nor appropriate. The Respondent contends that this determination was not made arbitrarily, but rather on the basis of meticulous considerations surrounding the non-continuous nature of the work. [30] In compliance with cl 7 of the Directive, the Respondent confirms that Dr Turato considered both the genuine operational requirements of the SCHHS as well as all decisions previously made with regard to Ms Burnside’s engagement at the higher classification. [31] In addition, the Respondent says that in accordance with cl 8 of the Directive, the decision-maker considered that Ms Burnside has been continuously engaged at the higher classification for 74 months with her secondment having been extended 11 times. However, it says the role ceases on 30 June 2024. [32] On review, the Respondent acknowledges the requirements under ss 120(5)(c) and (d) of the PS Act to state in the decision letter the number of times Ms Burnside’s secondment has been extended and refer to any previous decisions made. Regardless, the Respondent says this oversight had no effect on the decision arrived at by the delegate and the decision letter appropriately referred to Ms Burnside having been seconded since 22 May 2017. [33] Per cl 10 of the Directive, the Respondent submits that the decision letter outlined the findings on material questions of fact and referenced the evidence and other material upon which the findings were based. The decision was fair and reasonable [34] The Respondent contends that it has demonstrated that it is not viable to approve Ms Burnside’s application for conversion at the higher classification level due to its genuine operational requirements. It submits that the decision had due regard for Ms Burnside’s human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and its review complied with the Directive. [35] The Respondent also says it has no obligation to create an additional substantive role where there is no continuing and permanent need. [36] According to the Respondent, the PS Act ‘establishes that permanency of employment is the default basis of employment, and fair treatment of employees and maximising employment security are to be considered compatible with the main purpose of the Act where this can be achieved (in accordance with ss 1.1 and 4.2 of the Directive).’ -- 8 of 15 -- 9 [37] The Respondent says that its decision does not detract from the main purposes of the Act and reiterates that Ms Burnside remains employed on a permanent basis in line with the Respondent’s commitment to maximise permanent employment where possible.2 [38] Ultimately, the Respondent says: To approve Ms Burnside’s application for conversion to a higher classification into a temporary role, which is funded for a defined period, would not be in alignment with our industrial obligations of employment security. Such an appointment could result in the precarious situation where, when funding ceases, the role will no longer exist, and Ms Burnside may become an Employee Requiring Placement (ERP). In summary, Ms Burnside is requesting to be made permanent in a temporary role that is exclusive. Appellant’s submissions [39] Ms Burnside’s submissions reinforce her suitability for the role and her disagreement with the Respondent’s reliance on its operational requirements to refuse her appointment at the higher classification level. Genuine operational requirements [40] Whereas the Respondent submits that the CA4 role is temporary and funded by time- limited funding, Ms Burnside submits that the SCHHS is likely to benefit from continued funding from the program beyond 30 June 2024. [41] To provide context, Ms Burnside explains that the purpose of the CHSP is to provide entry-level support for older Australians requiring assistance to live independently in their homes and communities, including help with daily tasks, home modifications, transport, social support and nursing care.3 [42] Ms Burnside says the Commonwealth has recently announced an increase in funding to the program of $310 million over four years.4 Hence, Ms Burnside says the program will continue beyond 30 June 2024. Therefore, Ms Burnside submits it is unlikely that the CSHP will cease providing funds to service providers like the SCHHS unless the SCHHS decides not to apply for a grant. [43] Ms Burnside notes that the Respondent’s submissions do not address whether it intends to apply for a continuing CHSP grant. However, Ms Burnside says that it would be 2 Department of the Premier and Cabinet Employment Security Policy s 4.1. 3 Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Annual Report 2022-23, 317. 4 Appellant’s submissions filed 31 October 2023, Attachment A1; Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Budget 2023-2024, ‘Delivering the largest ever pay rise to aged care workers’, 4. -- 9 of 15 -- 10 unlikely for a Hospital and Health Service that has ‘been reported in the media as having a $14.8 million deficit’5 to decide against applying for further funding through the CHSP. [44] Ms Burnside points to the SCHHS’s Master Clinical Services Plan 2022-2027, ‘Operating Context – Population demographic and key indicators’ which says: The age profile of the population is expected to change, with the population aged over 60 years expected to increase from 27% of the total SCHHS population in 2016, to 31% in 2031. This is higher than the Queensland proportion (25% in 2031).6 [45] Ms Burnside submits that this projection provided by SCHHS identifies a continuing need for the work she performs. [46] In addition, Ms Burnside says that the SCHHS is seeking to safely provide health care in non-hospital settings. Here, Ms Burnside makes further reference to the SCHHS’s Master Clinical Services Plan 2022-2027 which at ‘Strategy 4e: Expand our care at home and non-hospital settings’ says: Description Progress opportunities to provide more care at home and non-hospital settings by expanding the scope of Hospital in the Home (HiTH) and developing patient-centred virtual care models. Background/rationale Hospital level care can now safely be provided in non-hospital settings (e.g. in homes or residential aged care facilities) for patients that meet specific clinical and non-clinical criteria.7 [47] Reflecting on this information, Ms Burnside contends, ‘Both the demographic changes involved in an increasing older population and the move towards seeing patients in non- hospital settings are indications that the work I perform will not only continue but increase.’ Ms Burnside argues that the Respondent’s submission that its genuine operational reasons do not support her permanent appointment at the higher classification is at odds with its own Master Clinical Services Plan. Ms Burnside says that the Respondent’s failure to address this discrepancy in its submissions ‘calls into question’ their reliance on genuine operational reasons. [48] Turning to the Respondent’s submission that there is no substantive vacancy against which to permanently appoint her, Ms Burnside says that as she alone has occupied this 5 Appellant’s submissions filed 31 October 2023, [12]; Amy Sheehan, ‘Health service under pressure to find $14 million in savings after budget blowout’, ABC Sunshine Coast, (online, 16 October 2023). 6 Appellant’s submissions filed 31 October 2023, Attachment A3; Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Master Clinical Services Plan 2022-2027, ‘Operating Context – Population demographic and key indicators’, 14. 7 Ibid 49. -- 10 of 15 -- 11 position for six years, the question of a substantive vacancy is an irrelevant consideration.8 [49] Ms Burnside also addresses the Respondent’s submission that her secondment is tied to the ‘unique circumstances of the role, and does not contemplate ongoing, permanent employment’.9 According to Ms Burnside, a higher classification role based on Commonwealth funding is not a ‘unique circumstance’. She says there is no certainty that the position will cease and reiterates that she has been in the role for six years, having been extended 11 times. [50] Ms Burnside submits that the Respondent has not demonstrated determinative reasons as to why it has not contemplated her permanent appointment in the CA4 role, which Ms Burnside says is an obligation on the chief executive when requested by an eligible employee under s 120 of the PS Act. [51] Ultimately, Ms Burnside says that ‘while the grant might have a known end date, the work I perform does not. There is no unexpected short-term increase in workload. It is expected to increase over the next eight years.’10 [52] For these reasons, Ms Burnside contends that there is no genuine operational reason to prevent her permanent employment at the higher classification and that it would be inconsistent with the objects of the PS Act and the Directive for the Commission to uphold the decision. [53] Ms Burnside seeks that the decision be set aside and the matter returned to the decision- maker with directions that the Respondent consider her request to be permanently employed at the higher classification level in accordance with the PS Act and the Directive. Respondent’s submissions in reply [54] The Respondent did not file any submissions in reply. [55] The Industrial Registry wrote to the parties on 8 November 2023 noting that the Directions Order of 27 September 2023 invited parties to file further submissions on 1 November 2023. The Registry’s correspondence confirmed that further submissions had not been received and the decision was therefore reserved. 8 Jones v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 317, [88]-[91]. 9 Respondent’s submissions filed 11 October 2023, [9]. 10 Appellant’s submissions filed 31 October 2023, Attachment A3; Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Master Clinical Services Plan 2022-2027, ‘Operating Context – Population demographic and key indicators’, 14. -- 11 of 15 -- 12 Consideration [56] The Directive requires that in considering the request for employment at the higher classification level, the decision-maker must have regard to the genuine operational requirements of the public sector entity; and the reasons for each decision previously made in relation to the person during the person’s continuous period of acting at, or secondment to, the higher classification level.11 Reasons for each decision previously made [57] Ms Burnside has been acting in the higher duties position since 2017. This is the second time Ms Burnside has requested appointment to the higher duties position and the second time her request has been refused. [58] The decision letter does not address the fact that a review was undertaken last year and that appointment to the higher classification was refused on the basis that funding was coming to an end and with it the position. While the decision letter notes that Ms Burnside has been acting in the position since 2017, it does not state, as required, that she has been extended in the position on 11 occasions. [59] While the submissions of the Respondent state that consideration was given to the previous review, there is no evidence of such consideration in the decision letter Ms Burnside received. The decision letter does not refer to the previous review conducted and the reason the previous request was rejected. It is important that decisions comply with the requirements of the Directive and legislation. It seems to me that one of the reasons for inclusion of such information in a decision is that it causes the decision-maker to pause and consider the context of the request and whether it is fair and reasonable to again refuse the request for appointment. [60] In the previous review, the Respondent cited the cessation of Commonwealth funding on 30 June 2023 and consideration it was giving to abolishing Ms Burnside’s position due to the cessation of funding as a genuine operational requirement precluding appointment.12 This did not occur and that some 15 months after that decision was made, Ms Burnside continues to be employed in the higher classification role. [61] A previous refusal to appoint to the higher classification does not automatically render a new refusal unfair or unreasonable. However, in this case, I think it provides important context for determining whether the operational requirements cited as a basis for refusal are genuine. 11 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ss 120(4)(a)-(b). 12 Burnside (n 1) [23]. -- 12 of 15 -- 13 Genuine operational reasons [62] In Morison v State of Queensland (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women),13 Deputy President Merrell considered the phrase ‘genuine operational requirements’ and said that construed in context, should include consideration of: …whether or not there was an authentic need, having regard to the effective, efficient and appropriate management of the public resources of the department, to appoint an employee, who has been assuming the duties and responsibilities of a higher classification level in the department for the requisite period of time, to ‘…the position at the higher classification level.’14 [63] The Respondent submits that the role ceases on 30 June 2024, however the material provided to me indicates that the Federal Government has announced an increase of funding for the program for a further four years. It seems to me entirely unlikely that the Federal Government would increase funding for the project in all locations but the Sunshine Coast. [64] In any case, the Respondent’s Master Clinical Services Plan 2022-2027 includes ‘Strategy 4e: Expand our care at home and non-hospital settings’ and describes an expansion of the scope of Hospital in the Home. Further, the Respondent’s own document notes that the population aged over 60 years is expected to increase to 31% in 2031, compared to the Queensland figure of 25%. It follows that the proportion of the Sunshine Coast population requiring aged care programs will continue to grow. [65] I accept Ms Burnside’s submission that while the grant may have a known end date, the work she performs does not. I am of the view that it is entirely unlikely that Ms Burnside’s role will cease to exist on 30 June 2024. While the Respondent says that it has no obligation to create a substantive role where there is no continuing and permanent need, it seems to me that there is an authentic need for Ms Burnside to undertake the higher classification role and that if Commonwealth funding ceases, the Respondent will have an authentic need to continue her employment in the role from other funding sources. [66] The Respondent submits that permanent appointment of Ms Burnside to the role, ‘could result in a precarious situation… where Ms Burnside may become an Employee Requiring Placement’. I do not accept that this is a genuine operational requirement precluding Ms Burnside’s appointment to the higher classification position. Ms Burnside is clearly suitable for employment in the position, having undertaken the position for 74 months at the time of review. I am confident that in the unlikely event that the SCHHS finds itself no longer in need of a long-term experienced staff member in the area of hospital care provision in homes or residential aged care facilities, that it will readily be capable of placing Ms Burnside in another role suitable to her skill and experience. 13 [2020] QIRC 203. 14 Ibid [40]. -- 13 of 15 -- 14 [67] While the Respondent points out that Ms Burnside is already permanently employed and that therefore the principle of maximising security and permanency of employment has been fulfilled, the legislative scheme envisages a situation where a person who is substantively permanently employed might seek security of employment in the higher classification role. [68] Ms Burnside was previously told that funding would end and her position would cease. This is not what occurred and Ms Burnside continues to be employed in the role. At the time the Respondent now predicts Commonwealth funding will cease, Ms Burnside will have been acting in the role for seven years. Having commenced employment with the Respondent in 2012, Ms Burnside has been employed in the higher classification position for more than half of the total time she has worked for SCHHS. While the PS Act requires the taking of measures to promote the effectiveness and efficiency of public sector entities,15 it also seeks to ensure fairness in the employment relationship and the fair treatment of employees by maximising employment security and permanency of employment.16 A consideration of genuine operational requirements requires not only consideration of effective and efficient management, but appropriate management. [69] It seems to me that a person who has acted in a higher classification role and has been the only occupant of that role for a period of six years (or closer to seven at the end of the current temporary appointment), in circumstances where there is no substantive incumbent set to return to the role and the Department’s own Master Clinical Services Plan document evinces a need for her to undertake the work in an ongoing way, is exactly the person envisaged by section 120 of the PS Act. [70] The decision is set aside and substituted with a decision that Ms Burnside be appointed to the role at that the higher classification. [71] For completeness, if I were not upholding the appeal and ordering Ms Burnside’s appointment, the decision would be returned to the decision-maker to be reconsidered and reissued. The Act specifically requires that the decision-maker state the number of times the employee has been extended in the role and address any previous reviews undertaken. I think a compelling reason to include such information is to cause the decision-maker to reflect and consider whether it is fair and reasonable to refuse appointment in circumstances where an individual has undertaken a significant period in the role. I accept that the omission of such information was an oversight on this occasion, however an employee should not need to file an appeal to be satisfied that the legislative requirements for a review have been satisfied. 15 Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 4(a)(iv). 16 Ibid 4(c)(ii). -- 14 of 15 -- 15 Order 1. Pursuant to s 562C(1)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), the decision appealed against is set aside. 2. The decision is substituted with a decision that Ms Burnside is to be appointed to the position at the higher classification. -- 15 of 15 --